2014-05-27 Reg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

sneering, the bored inspection of your nails, the walls, ceiling, pens and paper before you, and the obvious checking of your watches, being done while your public is speaking to you. It is always embarrassing to know that the media and people from other jurisdictions are in attendance. That this occurred tonight after the Mayor had scolded the audience for their rather controlled audible responses simply affirms the views of many, that you are arrogant, disrespectful and deem yourselves above reproach. This is surely not the case. Mr. Kraft and Mr. Crow told us tonight that you were all professionals and can behave and govern as such. This seems an increasingly optimistic goal, but I look forward to seeing the evidence. I would appreciate efforts to regain the high ground. “ Mr. Crow stated that as this City moves forward he thinks that it would be kind of interesting to go back to Resolution 2011-5, which was a resolution to reprimand Councilmember Price. Mr. Crow stated his thoughts were if he and his colleagues would have had the opportunity to talk about the issues on tonight’s agenda they would have realized that they were the ones who established these standards back in 2011. He stated that when the resolution for the censure of Mr. Price came out, it was backed by the Mayor, introduced by Mr. Kraft and seconded by Mr. Glickert. Mr. Crow noted Mayor Welsch had stated this Council was facing an unpleasant task of debating a resolution that if passed would formally reprimand one of its members. She noted that it was not an action to be taken lightly, but believed that it was an action that was needed to make clear what types of behavior are acceptable by members of Council as they meet to do the business of the people of this community. She stated that the resolution was about rules and acceptable behavior, not about free speech. Mr. Crow stated that the Mayor then went on to say that it was her determination that the decorum of the Councils’ debate at the February 14, 2011 meeting was not appropriate, and that she had conveyed her concerns by letter to Councilmember Price. The Mayor said only people who were in attendance at that February meeting would know what happened and understands that each person may perceive the proceedings differently. Mr. Crow pointed out that a large portion of citizens have seen what happened during the meeting two weeks ago and he does not think that anyone has disputed what happened, what was said or the denial. As one speaker put it, “We’ve had more people view the video than those who voted in the last election”. Mr. Crow stated that the Mayor then goes on to say that she acted out of her concern about behavior that she saw as disorderly, and believed it negatively impacted the work and the deliberation of this Council. The Mayo said, “Council must be able to discuss these issues openly, and can disagree agreeably without being hostile or disorderly. This is not about free speech, but rather trying to ensure that there is some form of respect of different opinions without name calling and disorderly behavior. This is a difficult step to make it clear to this community that the Council will only accept behavior from the elected members of this body that is worthy of the people who put them on this Council. This Resolution is about all members of Council living within their own rules. The Council cannot do the business of the people if each member of the Council does not follow the Council’s rules and respect the rights of other members of Council, staff and the public to have a different point of view.” Mr. Crow stated Councilmember Glickert said that he was in support of the resolution to reprimand Councilmember Price after much reading and thought. Mr. Glickert felt that something needed to be done now or it would just continue saying “We must communicate in an open and transparent way. “ Next, he read the comments of Mr. Kraft. “This is not a reprimand of a person, position or issue, but rather a reprimand of actions, actions that break the rules, actions that discredit this Council. Actions counter to the functioning of a democratic elected legislative body. Threatening actions, actions designed to intimidate, bullying actions. Bullying is not free speech, but rather inhibits it. Staff, citizens and Council members should not have to come to Council meetings in fear of this bullying behavior. In order to function it is the Council’s obligation to enforce an atmosphere free of such behavior. As a Councilmember it is his obligation to support this reprimand.” Mr. Crow said now we have the standards elicited by the three members of this body who voted to move tonight’s resolution off of the agenda, Mr. Crow stated that you might have to ask yourself these questions: 1. What type of behavior is acceptable? 2. Was the decorum of profanity and lying acceptable? 3. Was the behavior disorderly and did it negatively impact the workings of Council? 4. Was the action hostile? 5. Did the action respect the opinions of others without name calling?