The Council according to Charles Grant, part two

In the first part of this post (late last week) I mentioned one of the minor things that bothered me about Charles Grant's letter to the Chronicle editor on 9-24-08. Today I'm addressing the thing that bothers me most: that Charles Grant would rather get along that do what he believes is right.

Someone else said it better than I could hope to, in this note I got the day after Grant's letter appeared:

I just wanted to say how much I appreciated today's entry on your blog. Right way, wrong way. [9-25-08] I believe, too, that freedom of the press applies to everybody. There are a lot of people in our society that don't think very clearly, but they still have a right to speak. As my friend from college days used to say, "Everyone is entitled to their own ridiculous opinion." The main problem with democracy is that the will of the people is rarely going to be a clear consensus. And I'm not sure the cream always rises to the top. But it's still the best system around!

I was thinking of what you said as I was reflecting on Charles' letter yesterday. I don't agree with him. And I don't think he's being entirely honest with himself. With his knowledge of history ... and human nature ... he has to be aware of the advantages of the Council-Manager system of government, as opposed to the outdated and awkward Commission form. And he knows they deliberately shut out the input of the local electorate in order to proceed with their own willful program ... and he knows it's not right!

But I can't help but like the man. He is smart, and articulate, and I believe he has a good heart. You're right, I believe he thinks he is serving his community to the best of his ability. I wonder if he knows how much I wish I could keep him on there. He's the only one of the four that has the savvy for a position that aims at vision and policy for the future. And the only one that would be capable of writing a letter in defense of the Council's presumptuous ways.

I have to work to take him down if we can, because I believe the need for a strongly-defined charter is so critical for this city right now. But I think I'd actually miss having him on that Council. I just wish he'd held his ground when he first opposed Barlow's bold gambit.

I, too, don't think Grant is being very honest with himself. And, I've felt this way about him for a while. Like this writer, I'm sad that Grant appears to be taking the path of least resistance in fulfilling his duties to council. He readily admitted in his letter that he chose to vote with the three remaining councilors, even though he originally argued otherwise. He doesn't say he changed his mind, he just says he voted to go along with the majority:

I am sure my fellow councilors will remember my speaking at length at one of the first meetings of the new council in favor of staying the course [allowing the already in-place Charter Review Committee to continue their work to its conclusion and acting upon their decision], but a majority was in favor of terminating it. I then voted with the majority to try to maintain the harmony within the council, rather than start off with a schism, and in my opinion we have gradually progressed since then, in terms of our collective functioning, although we still have some way to go.

(I can assume that by progress toward collective functioning, Grant refers to his continued votes with the majority. And, I can also assume the "some way to go" would be a reference to Mayor Peterson who continues to be the lone holdout against the "majority" of three plus Grant in many votes. But, I digress.)

Grant doesn't say he changed his mind about the decision regarding the Charter Review Committee; he just decided to vote with the majority to avoid a "schism." This doesn't take a lot of fortitude and it doesn't take any integrity. Morten, Locke, and Barlow made up the majority Grant mentions and they would have carried the motion without Grant's vote. (Mayor Peterson was against disbanding the Charter Review Committee and managed to stick with his decision.) The Morten-Locke-Barlow-Grant majority, by the way, was in favor of disbanding and/or ignoring the Charter Review Committee's year of hard work and subsequent recommendations, and avoiding a public vote, because it clearly identified a type of government they were not interested in: Council-Manager.

This disappoints me tremendously because I always thought, as did the person who wrote me about Grant's letter, that Grant could be counted on for his integrity. Someone who votes to go along with the crowd isn't what I look for in an elected official and, like the writer above, I'm working to see Grant replaced this time around, if for nothing other than this clear admission that he just wants to get along.

Ownership VS Leadership

I heard these words used recently by a City employee to describe the difference in the way our current council approaches their duties as compared to previous councils. This employee has seen a few councilors come and go. I expect she knows of what she speaks.

From WordNet

OWNERSHIP
noun
1. the relation of an owner to the thing possessed; possession with the right to transfer possession to others
2. the act of having and controlling property [syn: possession]
3. the state or fact of being an owner

LEADERSHIP
noun
1. the activity of leading; "his leadership inspired the team"
2. the body of people who lead a group; "the national leadership adopted his plan"
3. the status of a leader; "they challenged his leadership of the union"
4. the ability to lead; "he believed that leadership can be taught"

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.

Right way, wrong way?

I am very much in the camp that believes that doing the right thing will always mean that you win in the end. Even when the short term road looks harder going as a result. ~ Gary Bembridge

There are some people who think the idea of a recall is wrong. I've heard how it is disruptive to the city, a vendetta against the councilors, a personal grievance, illegal, shameful..........you name it. It doesn't seem worthwhile, certainly not effective, to argue with these people or these statements. Early on I tried to respond to many of them with calm, reasoned statements -- facts about why it isn't illegal and is in fact constitutionally guaranteed; how it is actually a sign of a healthy democracy; how little my personal feelings, good or bad, about Barlow and Morten affected our decision to file for recall. I tried hard to be reasonable and fair and while acknowledging their right to voice their opinions just like I'm voicing mine, I still tried to present the facts.

I've come to the stunning realization that "facts" are shaped by each person's personal view and don't necessarily have anything to do with the truth! I know that sounds naive, and it surely is. Of course people form their opinions around the "facts" they choose to believe. I know that, intuitively, but it took this recall effort to show me just how true it is that people don't always know or care to know the truth and just how much they hear only they want to hear.

I don't claim to know or have all the facts, and I certainly am just as guilty as anyone else when it comes to hearing and seeing just what I want. But, in this case, working at City Hall has provided me an up close view of what goes on behind the scenes. I honestly thought that people should be privy to that, that people needed to get more involved, watch the council in action, and make more informed decisions.

Worse yet, and here's my naivete in full swing, I think I have some sort of moral obligation to help make people more aware. If I don't even live in St. Helens and I'm concerned about the things I see and hear, maybe it is my obligation to share information. You know? It is kind of my m.o, if you will. I'm a life-long do-gooder who champions what I think is right. I try to live by the golden rule I learned when I was so young, and I still try to make my mama proud.

Well, guess what. For the most part, so does everyone else. The person who called me devious? She believes that. The councilor who said we were disruptive to the city? He believes that. The person who told me that Doug "walks on water" (yup, a quote) believes that! One of the recall councilors believes there was no need to bother hearing or reading the Charter Review Committee's recommendations after a year of their hard work. The other believes in creating more parks (admirable, agreed) without needing to staff up the Parks Dept. And, they both believe there are no concerns about the budget and how they are spending money. And, you can't fault any of them!

Seriously. They believe those things and they act and speak accordingly. So, cheers! We all have to do what we believe or none of us will sleep at night. And, it's part of my "do what is right" thing that makes me say it: We all live what we believe.

And, that's why Sally and I and Jim and Bob and all the silent partners will stick this out. You have to do what you believe is right. And, for us, this is right.

Right way, wrong way? It's just a two-mile loop! The only difference is which way you head around the loop. What's important in the end is that you choose a direction and go -- don't just stand by and watch. Do what you think is right and trust that no matter how bumpy the road, you will win in the end.

A message worth sharing

Now is the time to get involved to
RE-ELECT MAYOR RANDY PETERSON!

Join us this THURSDAY NIGHT, SEPTEMBER 25, at 6:00 p.m.
at the Columbia Community Mental Health Conference Room (58646 McNulty Way) to discuss ways we can all get involved to keep Mayor Randy in office. We need Randy and we need you -- please plan to attend. And, please pass this message along to anyone you know who wants to keep someone with common sense on our City Council!

It's not recall news, but it matters just as much. I hesitated to post it because I don't want it misconstrued as proof that Randy Peterson coerced Sally and I into filing the recall petitions, and believe me some still think that's so.

Re-electing Randy Peterson (and electing Pat Martyn and Steve Blanchard) is just as important as recalling Doug and Phil. If we don't want Doug as a councilor we most certainly don't want him as mayor.

If you agree, be there.

How do you answer this kind of stuff?

From a recent letter to the editor in the Chronicle:

"These two people [Barlow & Morten] on the city council are up for reelection in November. Why in God's name are you trying to impeach them now? Who talked you into this? Why, and what was their motive to have you do it? Why did you not ask and get your own people to run against them in November?"

I get weary of reading the comments I consider ignorant. Not nasty, just ignorant. In the same letter as this quote is taken from, the perpetrators of the recall are encouraged to do their homework and, when they realize their mistakes, be big about it and admit they were wrong. People like this writer irritate me--I want to tell them they need to take their own advice!

Since I refuse to write a letter to the editor to refute or answer each and every misstatement made during this recall (and believe me, there are plenty), I'm going to use this forum to comment that Barlow and Morten are NOT up for reelection in November. That is exactly why we're trying to recall, NOT impeach them. We don't want to wait two more years until they do come up for election. No one talked me into this, and I'm fairly sure no one talked Sally into it, and thus there is no hidden motive.

The last sentence boggles my mind, "Why did you not ask and get your own people to run against them in November."

Sheesh, where to start with people like this?

We can make this happen

As I write this we have just 34 days to get petitions signed and into the hands of our chief petitioner. It's not a lot of time and there is much to be done. This recall is important not only to me, or to Sally, or to all of you who are involved in it. It is critical to the city and the citizens of St. Helens. And, sadly, many of them don't even realize that.

I heard a citizen say recently that the next two elections (November 2008 and 2010) are critical to the future of the city. I happen to agree (although I'm a political beast and believe every election is important). These two particular elections are vital because they will frame the tenor of the city for many years to come. To elect Morten mayor, re-elect Keith Locke or Charles Grant this year, or re-elect Doug and Phil in 2010 means we can expect a council that all agrees that the financial stability of the city beyond their terms is not their problem. They will agree on everything that Doug and Phil want. Everything.

If Morten wins the election for mayor, he and his council of yes-men will be able to handpick the person of their choice to fill Morten's seat. Did you know that? That gives Morten his vote, the appointee's vote, Phil's vote, and assuming re-election of Charles and Keith, the remaining two votes. Envision a City run by a really nice guy who heartily shakes your hand and says whatever you want to hear and then does what ever he and his buds want. Talk about budget issues!

City employees (with few if any exceptions)and certainly the staff at City Hall and the Police Department are very concerned. For a guy who is always complaining about staff morale, and claiming he's our great savior and the great communicator, I wonder if he has any clue how truly disgruntled we will be under his leadership.

We worry about our jobs and the fiscal security of our employer. With these guys in direct control of all the city departments, are we likely to have better or more informed decision-making? Or, can we expect, as we too often see right now, just a free-for-all to see who can get their pet project pushed through first?

Both this November's election and the one in November 2010 are important. And for similar reasons this recall is just as important. Getting this to the ballot is a more than just a diversion for the November election this year, as some claim. Peterson needs to win the mayoral election and then we need to win the recall that follows.

We need to get Doug out before he does any more damage. We need to get Doug out for the city and it's citizens. And, to do that, we need to get the recall to the ballot; we've got just 34 days to make that happen.

Please commit to filling one petition to recall Phil and one to recall Doug. That's 20 signatures. There have been over 800 hits on this blog so even if there are only 20 people reading it, you 20 people can make the difference. 20 signatures each is 400 signatures. If each of us got just 20 signatures and convinced a friend to do the same, we could more than make this happen.

We need more than 1200 signatures, 600+ for each recall. Sally can't do that alone, no matter how much we wish she could. If you can only get five signatures or three signatures, get them! And, get your petitions to Sally or to me by the 24th of October.

We won't have the chance again. And, it could affect us for years to come. Please.