R.I.P. Burlington's Spirit of Generosity

Yesterday, I wrote about the proposed ordinance changes against street people and Burlington's Phoenix House. Here's my comment on the Blurt/Seven Days post:

"I've said it before to my friends here (and I'll say it again): Burlington is a small town pushing hard to be a city. And if you read all the accolades Burlington has received in the PR "Best of..." categories, you'd think we were the most hospitable, liveable place in North America! We're not! As I read the whining comments on here, hardness of heart comes to mind. You've lost that spirit of generosity that has made Vermont great!

"When I lived in London ten years ago, I might have been irritated by the constant panhandlers, but recognised that this is part of life in a big city. Actually, I stopped frequently outside my neighbourhood tube station and talked with the people who sat there ("Spare some change, sir?") and heard their stories. Turns out the majority were human! Fancy that! And several friends I made had once been among the working class, laid off unemployed (one pay-check away from poverty), and were struggling to find food for their own families. (With the new ConDem government it will get worse!)

"The memo accompanying this resolution was written by police chief Schirling. He heads up that same force that sends deputy officers as department liaisons to NPA meetings, encouraging citizens to act as block wardens and report on citizens' "undesirable" activities in neighbourhoods. So much for friendly, community policing.

"I'm actually more concerned about the despicable NIMBY resolution against Phoenix House. "The Other America" is alive right in our own backyard.

LOCAL: CITY COUNCIL LEADERSHIP CHILDISHNESS AND HYPOCRISY

John Odum writes a remarkably astute - and not very benign - diary on Green Mountain Daily concerning the continuing discussions surrounding the contrariness of last week's Burlington City Council meeting:-- In any event, it should be plain that ten minutes of Roberts-rules-neener-neenerisms before an incompetent Chair do not merit that Chair compounding his failure by calling the police. Such a decision was not simply ridiculous, it was unethical. So why are so many self-identifying lefties on the internet so eagerly defending the action (and, in the process - or as part of the process - so badly mischaracterizing the supposed transgressions of a few City Councilors)?

It's all Partisan Derangement Syndrome. Otherwise sensible people getting caught up in the mass hysteria of partisan groupthink. What we've got is a few lefties who identify with the Progressive Party - as well as some die-hard Republicans - absolutely losing their shit because of their contempt for Democrats (or their personal animosity towards Ed Adrian). Honestly, after looking at that video, its all I can figure, and its all very childish.

I'll tell you one thing, though. This whole embarrassing dustup is another reminder that Burlington City Politics is in serious need of an enema. Some Progs & Repubs would do well to take a lesson from folks like Rama and see it for what it is and not for the mass indictment of the Democratic Party they'd desperately like it to be.

Predictions on what's in store at the next City Council meeting (from a commenter on the Odum piece):-- So here is my prediction -- Some of the same folks who supported the use of police force over the use of democracy & the rule of law will start singing the "victim song" when Wright's "Height Vote" is repeated.

Prepare to hear them say "they [insert random (Adrian/Brezniak etc.) Democrat here] made us screw up the meeting and now they are making us take the vote all over;" or some variation on that theme.

Here is the collateral problem for the citizens of Burlington who need to live with Kurt Wright's antics. Wright poisoned Thursday's vote to the point where no developer, landowner, lender, residential or commercial builder will rely on the new zoning law. It's now too expensive a proposition becuase of the risk of ending up in court on a permit appeal. Who wants to go to court and waste months or years on a screwed up law? Developers know they will end up with an appeal before they find themselves on a new top floor with a view of the lake. Savory, huh?

Still, do not expect Wright to take responsibility for poisoning the change in building heights. Instead he will say "they made me do it" and wimp out of acknowledging his own failure when the re-vote occurs. Similarly, some of the folks who advocated the use of dictatorial conduct and police force instead of respecting lawful, orderly (or even disorderly) parliamentary process, will also blame council members other than Mr. Wright.

Hypocrisy watch will be looking for those blaming council members who were following our established civic traditions and who were advocating within the established rules (Adrian, Brezniack et al.) rather than looking to Wright and his enablers who abandoned bedrock rule of law & order principles over a zoning amendment.

COMMENT: I've lead public meetings and can say from experience using Robert's Rules effectively can be unwieldy. Ed Adrian and David Berezniak - elected councilors for their respective wards - were representing the interests of their constituents and used proper means to question procedures at the meeting. Kurt Wright's decision to call the police on them was just plain pathetic and unethical.

Having read a lot of the comments about what happened, I'm convinced that Burlington's citizenry is ignorant about government. And when you factor in that only 28% of registered voters participated in the last city election, they really don't give a shit about electing our democratic representatives. Easy to complain and name-call, but when it comes to active civic engagement: fagetaboutit!

LOCAL NEWS: CITY COUNCIL MEETING - SPARRING SAGA CONTINUES

Shay Totten has added several updates to his original post about the March 12th city council meeting. The discussion has continued on BurlingtonPol and Green Mountain Daily, too.

The majority of the comments on the blogs and Free Press coverage were made the day after by people who were not at the meeting - most of them had relied on the coverage in the Free Press:

Police called to City Council meeting

You'd think Steve Ekberg had streaked around Contois, disrupting the proceedings. But it was council president Kurt Wright who'd called BPD to quell what he claimed as possible unruly behavior by councilors Adrian and Berezniak.

I was not at the meeting. But from the reactions on the BFP site and the buzz on the blogs, I was expecting Adrian's and Berezniak's behaviour to be worse than was reported. What amazed me was that the police being called and their presence at the meeting was acceptable to people. I would even say that the Free Press encouraged this response with its headline.



After viewing Channel 17's rebroadcast of the Downtown Use and Height Ordinance segment - where Adrian and Berezniak questioned the procedural aspects of the agenda - it is very clear there was no reason for Wright to phone the police. He was flustered, but he was also over-reacting. As a mayoral candidate he bragged how he was a conciliator in working with opponents on the council. Calling the cops was an inappropriate remedy if we take seriously democracy in our municipal government. Councilor Berezniak is correct in making a formal complaint to city attorney Schatz.

I agree with Jack McCullough's (GMD) comments after having seen the council meeting video:

1. The entire period of the so-called disruption and confrontation regarding the points of order and points of information lasted maybe five minutes or so.

2. It appears that there were a number of different points of order and points of information that the Democrats were raising. As I could make them out, they included whether the Council was holding a new meeting or a continuation of the previous meeting; what agenda they were working from in light of the fact that the clerk had issued a new agenda but Councilor Knodell initially seemed to be addressing an item on the original agenda; whether it was in order to take up the ordinance without its first having gone through the ordinance committee; and whether the current Council was bound by a resolution that laid out a special process for this ordinance, notwithstanding the fact that there had been a change of council membership since the adoption of the original resolution. (I may be missing one or two points, but I think that's the gist of it.)

3. From what I could tell, the Democrats tried to get rulings on their points of order (or information ), but I didn't see them pushing any particular point of order once there was a ruling from the Chair on it.

4. There were a number of times when the Chair tried to reject or rule a point of order out of order before hearing it.

5. The Chair eventually informed the objecting members that they had the right to appeal his rulings and seek a vote on their point of order if they disagreed with his ruling; they never did so.

6. At no point did the Chair as for a vote on whether the Democrats were obstructing the proceedings and should be removed.

I think #6 is an important point. There is a parliamentary process for removing members who are obstructing the work of the body, but they don't involve the Chair calling the police. There may have been people other than Kurt Wright and Jane Knodell who were annoyed at the objections of the Democrats, but we didn't hear from them. We can't know what they would have done if it had been put to a vote, but it is at least possible that members of the Council who would need to maintain a working relationship with the minority might take a different view of how to proceed than the lame duck Council President and Councilor.

In law there is a process to ask the judge to allow you a continuing objection when you know you will need to make the same objection repeatedly in the course of a witness's testimony, but it doesn't apply to an objection based on different grounds. As far as I could tell, these were new objections based on different grounds, so each time an objection was made it was the first time it was being presented to the chair.

Either way, it just boggles my mind that a presiding officer would call the police and threaten to remove elected officials trying to represent their constituents, even if they were in the minority.