Stokes Valley News Editorial
August 2002

Mutual Respect and Leading by Example

Have you ever been to a city Council meeting? If not we recommend that you sit through at least one in your life time. There are a number of reasons why we say that, not least of which is the fact that this group of twelve spends many millions of your dollars on your behalf. Another reason you should attend is to see how the alleged democratic system runs.

Last meeting, one of the most contentious issues debated was the proposal to have anyone wanting to make public comment at Council meetings apply for the privilege by midday the day before the meeting. Also to be introduced was the right of the chairman, the mayor in the case of Council meetings, to veto applications to speak.

Everyone who spoke in public comment was against the plan, which was seen as making participation more difficult, a view shared by many. However, eight of the 12 councillors were in favour of the proposal claiming that the public would have no problem making the written request. A major argument for the case, put forward by the eight, was that some members of the public did not show proper respect for councillors or council officers.

We think there is cause for pause and concern here. Firstly, if you were ever to sit through the length of a Council meeting you might be surprised and disturbed to hear the way in which some councillors abuse others, with the abuse at times reaching a level bordering on the ridiculous. They attack others for their point of view, while forgetting that their argument is just that, another point of view. We live in a democracy where points of view, even those we oppose, should be met with respect.  We need differing points of view and we need valid mechanisms whereby those points of view can be expressed. The right to speak at Council meetings, it could be argued, is just such a mechanism for what good is a leadership out of touch with the people?

It is always alarming when we see the powers that be determining ways to put obstacles in the path of others who may want to disagree with them. It is often the cowardly last resort of dictators. Sure, the proposal did not seek to completely ban opposing comment, but the argument put forward that ordinary members of the public would have no problem submitting written requests to speak 30 hours before a meeting seems greatly ungrounded in reality. Perhaps the hidden message here is that people who are not organised, confident and articulate enough to do this aren't really worth listening to anyway?

And then there's the right of any one party to veto someone else's freedom to speak and contribute during public comment time at Council meetings. Do I even need to expand on what a threat to democracy that idea is?

Council claim they are addressing the concern that some members of the public speak disrespectfully about or to them. This is a valid concern and democracy is a two-way street. Shame on those who abuse their democratic privileges by completely and publicly disrespecting community leaders. But what Council must realise and remember is that respect is earned. One way respect can be earned is through firm but fair chairmanship. Robert's Rules of Order are designed to maintain an orderly, democratic and fair environment for discussion and business, but they are of little value if they are not properly used or understood. In such cases, the temptation for leaders is to resort to something more hard-line and unfair such as gagging those they fear or can't control. This should never happen.

Both members of the public and the Council need to show mutual respect for each other including respect for the other's freedom of expression. The Council needs to lead by example here and earn the respect of the public. The public should use their comment time at Council meetings wisely and courteously.

Widespread disrespect for leadership is surely a sign of a society in decline and is never just the fault of the people. It is incumbent upon both factions in this controversy to respect each other and the democratic process. Without this we are all worse off.