Council Vote Fuels Ugly Comments by Republicans

As I've said on other threads, I agree with the opinion that the Council screwed up. And as I've also said before, I don't like they way the Mayor tends to get negotiations with the Council worked out in advance to avoid lengthy public debates. While I can understand the policymaking pragmatism of this approach, I think it's very bad for democracy and for our government. (That's why I started calling it The Democracy Problem a couple of years ago.)

I know many of these Council members, and I trust them not to capriciously make decisions about important matters. I don't believe they do that much, but this was one glaring mistake. I hope they do take away from this experience the understanding that expedience needs to be balanced with process. I would like to see more productive debate at Council meetings - it could lead to better policies!

While Matt C is personally responsible for a lot of debating on the current Council, it rarely seems likely or even intended to change anyone's mind. Knee-jerk disagreement is just as unhealthy as lock-step agreement. Neither allows the Council to work as an effective team combining their diverse knowledge and perspectives into a better policies for all.

So anyway, I agree with the assessment of Laurin and others that the outcry about this poor decision was way out of proportion, and I do wonder what is really behind it. The Republican-orchestrated theory is an interesting one. I wonder if other people have ideas as to what caused such an emotional and turgid reaction?

I think we're going to see more of this locally, as conservatives struggle both to combat the reversals of public attitudes regarding Republican politics and to expand local influence in Chapel Hill and Orange County. Any foothold is a foothold.

That noted, however, it also seems to me not all that inexplicable that there was a sharp outcry about the Council's actions. Most people not already engaged in the local political scene only know what's going on from headlines in the CHN, the CHH, and maybe the "City/State" section of the N&O. They've gotten used to a fair amount of media run-up "warning," explanation, and discussion before the Council acts on something, but this time there wasn't much. So for most, it was a Tuesday morning surprise.

Add that to the "perfect storm" aspects of the timing with other tax/budget issues AND to what I can only describe as cranky apprehension about our economic future, given the impact of $140/barrel crude oil, the national debt, and Iraq.

Finally you have only to look at how simple the health insurance issue seems to be, and it's less surprising that it should strike a number of people as a clear target for expressing generic exasperation at political arrogance and self-interest. Complaining to Capitol Hill is largely an exercise in spitting into the wind, and the idea of protesting to the White House or the Supreme Court is just laughable. But we CAN get to the Council and we CAN expect them to respond.

If you're mad as hell and don't want to take it any more, this probably seemed a perfect example of what's going wrong everywhere. And therefore, any conservative campaign in the works tapped ready sympathy.

It is about process, but it's about more than that.

One of the things about being away from here for nine days is your get to see what's happening in other places and how their local politics flows.  Coming home and catching up with this issue is interesting because I think that in some ways it is a defining issue and some have it just flat wrong.

Saying the Council made a mistake, they corrected it, so let's just move on doesn't work for me.  The mistake was not understanding the outcry that came as a result of their action.  I spoke at the meeting the night of June 9th and asked the Council to understand what people were experiencing on the economic front before passing things for their own benefit.  (Yes, everyone doesn't agree that public financing of elections works to their "own" benefit, but I believe it does.)

Here's the rub - Mayor Foy and Council members Strom, Greene and Ward ran as a TEAM.  We were asked to return the TEAM to the Council and the TEAM also included then Council member Hill; he was not returned.  When four members are in sync on almost every single issue, we have a right to question whether or not independent judgment is being exercised.  Not one of the four, you might note, has offered an apology or said much publicly.  How much they "coordinate" and "process" Council business prior to meetings is another concern people have. I can only wonder how much Matt C is included in this! All knew this was on the consent agenda and except for Matt, must have been fine with it.  Otherwise someone would have also spoken up and even voted against it.  Independence or TEAM group think?

Note also that Council member Ward has not commented on how one year he speaks out with such passion and emotion on this insurance thing and a couple of years later he is on the TEAM and says nothing about extending it for life.  Some here wondered about the fact that in the last election, he joined the TEAM and what it meant.  Teams, parties, or whatever you call them are designed to cue voters to a particular organized orientation and perspective.  Is this what we want for a nine-person Council?

This, at least to me, explains the anger, hostility, and outcry. I will never condone the negative emails and phone calls Council members received, but I do get the emotion and agree with George C above.  It would have also been helpful if the Mayor had explained what he was talking about in the first place!

It's not a conspiracy, it's people legitimately wondering why it was on the consent agenda, why only two members apologized, why the Council didn't weigh the broad public interest against their personal interest.

It's easy to say move on, but I doubt this will really happen until the members say more about this and until they structure a better way for the Council to handle pay and benefit decisions that will apply to a sitting council.

This is not overblown, this is not a conspiracy, and this is not how I expect a group of progressives to do public business.  I'm really saddened if others see this as an inconsequential blip that was just a mistake and that we should just move on.

As I try to help some of my clients understand, sometimes effective leadership is about understanding and valuing timing and the symbolic impact of the decisions that leaders make. 

Fred et al,

The last post was by me, I forgot to log in.  Joe

I would hope that there might be some sort of national organization that serves municipal governments that could provide a reviewer(s) for determining what constitutes fair and adequate compensation ...

This is a great idea.  If a paid consultant had recommended the continued health coverage then the same angry reaction might not have occured.  I do recall though, that Councilman Thorpe asked the staff to investigate policies in other similar municipalities.  They found that Orange County, Durham County and Cary offer pretty much the same coverage as was proposed.  And-we got that information for free!  Our Council is as deserving as the Orange and Durham County commissioners.  I don't remember any outcry about their benefits even though we Chapel Hillians are contributing to the Orange County benefits package.

The state of health care in this country is an undeniable mess.  EVERYONE should have health care, including each and every person who signed the petitions.  But, the anger expressed to the Council was misdirected-it should be focused on how we as a nation got to the point that this discussion would even be necessary.  But, as Priscilla said, "complaining to Capitol Hill is largely an exercise in spitting into the wind, and the idea of protesting to the White House or the Supreme Court is just laughable. But we CAN get to the Council and we CAN expect them to respond. " 

Del Snow

I guess that my point about paid consultants was missed.  I don't think that the Town should have hired one, just that IF they had a paid outside source recommending health care benefits ,that messenger would not have been blamed for the contents of the message

In order to have an economically diverse Council who can appreciate  "the state of the economy and the feeling of personal pain," offering a basic necessity such as health care (and public campaign financing) is key.  The fact that other municipalities offer coverage IS relevant.  When Universities want to attract big name coaches, they make competitive offers.  So, yes, in a sense other schools determine what any one school is paying its coaches.  There is a relationship between similar categories of employment  that people reference.  Professors at all Universities earn more than TAs.  And if Council people or County Commissioners all around you receive health care, then a standard has been set.  That is why Councilman Thorpe asked for the research-to find out the standard.

One thing that seems to be missing from all of this discussion, is any awareness of the incredible volume of work involved with being on the Council.  There is a massive amount of information to be learned and managed, committees and conferences beyond the Council meetings that last late into the night, and this is usually on top of other job obligations.  I hardly think that some cans of Coke, some cookies, and comfy chairs are  perks  to envy.

One good thing about all of this discussion, though.  It's brought out many new activists whom I hope will avail themselves of the privilege of coming to Council meetings and commenting on future agenda items.  There will be lots of discourse on growth and density coming up!  

Del Snow

That was  my  anonymous  posting  above about the Personnel Committee. 

Sally Greene is sitting in the Town Council Chambers twice a month, which is as often as we meet.

Del Snow