Civil council
I know that there is some sentiment that contentiousness on elected boards, councils and commissions is a negative and reflects poorly on the governmental agency. Some of the recent boards of county commissioners are examples of this.
But civil disagreement that results in a deeper examination of contentious issues often results in better government.
I've got no more insight in what occurred behind these closed doors than anyone else, but I'm not displeased to see a group of council members struggling with an issue that needs to be addressed and resolved. And while we may get painted with the negative brush for writing about the disagreements, the key is that they are discussing the public's business in public.
Comments (4)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Well said.
Posted on February 14, 2008 7:34 PM
Friend speaks my mind.
It sounds like there has been movement in a positive direction. Those who choose to not engage in moving in this direction or working cooperatively should step aside.
Posted on February 14, 2008 8:13 PM
Does anyone believe this mess is over? I agree that the City Council acted in a civil manner today. But they can't be so naive as to think we are gonna "move on". Mitch is so badly damaged there is no way in hell he can manage this city. Our police department is in the worst condition ever.
The previous mayor and and some previous council members were at the meeting today and I thought it was insulting. They are partly responsible for this mess. Why can't they "move on"?
Posted on February 14, 2008 10:25 PM
Let's hope we are all learning a lesson from recent events. I place great trust in the newspaper when its reporting is thorough, factual, and perceived as maintaining a neutral stance on important issues.
Posted on February 15, 2008 2:43 PM