The Council according to Charles Grant, part one

An interesting letter from Councilor Charles Grant held most of the space in this week's editorial section of the Chronicle (Wednesday, 9-24-08). Articulate, seemingly well-reasoned, and yes, lengthy. In my opinion, vintage Charles.

While I appreciated reading his thoughts, I was concerned about several things, too many for one post.

One of more minor issues that bothered me with Charles' letter is his need to have the Library staff report to him on such a regular basis. That's overkill--our Library staff is incredible, always has been. It's doing double-time now awaiting a new director. Are they really trusted so little that he needs to hear from them daily? Or is there some other reason he needs that daily reporting?

The reference to the Library's reporting schedule frosted me because this is the same councilor attached to the Arts & Cultural Commission. In more than two years of (sometimes more frequent than) monthly meetings, he has been present for just three of them. Three! He doesn't know or care what they are up to, doesn't take part, and doesn't answer emails and calls regarding ACC.

This conspicuous lack of representation to/from the City Council (especially since they've changed the way they do things without notifying the commissions), has managed to get this active, ambitious and dedicated group of volunteers into trouble with the Council.

Morten very vocally and abusively chastised them because he didn't know how to answer constituents and reporters who had questions about the paper arches sculpture. The entire demeaning and very public tirade was embarrassing for all involved. He told them the NEW council has final approval on every step of the process in determining new art projects. (Arts & Cultural Commission, 2-27-08)

And how were they supposed to have known that if no one told them? Certainly IF our councilors read the minutes and information provided them (and this is a whole other topic), they can see that Charles Grant very rarely attends the meetings he's assigned to attend. How exactly is the Arts Commission or any other group of city volunteers to know what's expected of them by the Council without any connection to that Council? And, IF the council reads the minutes of these meetings and IF they notice Charles' absence, why aren't they addressing that issue??

Doug bills himself as the great communicator. He needs some lessons in dealing with difficult subjects and he sorely needs some lessons in humility. It was all about HIM, and if you listen to him regularly, it usually is. HE couldn't answer HIS constituents' questions. HE was embarrassed in public by these thoughtless commissioners. HE didn't get to make the decisions. HE was personally harmed and humiliated. HE felt they owed him an apology!

And, this is vintage Doug as much as the wordiness is vintage Charles.

It's also very representative of the four councilors in general. They are all about themselves, not about the City. Their pet projects, their agendas, their feelings. They talk a good line, but when push comes to shove, it IS all about them.

It's time for a choice. Either we take back the city and reinstate responsible leadership: recall these councilors and elect others who recognize that public office is about public service not the public servant, or we stand by and let them take full ownership of the City of St. Helens.