Editorial 5.10, November 2003, by Deirdre Helfferich Real Politics—and Real Solutions One of the joys of Fairbanks politics is its entertainment value. Even when I get mad at public officials, I find myself enjoying the spectacle, the wit and humor displayed by officialdom and public alike, their clever barbs and bumbling gaffes, their thoughtful insights and unexpected idiocies. I know that I’m dealing with real people speaking from the heart, not scripted political puppet shows with carefully choreographed and rehearsed dance steps and speeches. Thursday night at the borough building is the real thing—politics where people actually have a chance to make things right and to get involved. I usually listen to parts of KUAC’s broadcast of the borough assembly meetings, but not always, and never all the way through. I’m very grateful that KUAC does this. It helps keep me connected to what’s going on in local government, in things that affect me and that I wouldn’t know about otherwise, as I usually do not attend assembly meetings. The Nov. 6 meeting had an issue I cared about deeply, and so I went to it and, for the first time, sat through an entire meeting, the whole six hours. During this meeting, at which the issue of the now-infamous secret meeting at Terry Aldridge’s house on Oct. 15 was resolved, I listened to the almost three hours’ worth of comments by the public and I watched and listened to the assembly members’ reactions. It was instructive. I think that one of the most important things about this meeting was that almost all of the seventy or so people who showed up were fearful of their government, and fearful that the so-called "gang of six" had been trying to pull one over on them. The level of distrust was high, and that fear underlay much of the anger that was shown. Most of the assembly members were angry, too. Cynthia Henry, who had referred to the six at the Oct. 30 meeting as a "pack of thieves," by the end of the Nov. 6 meeting apologized for this statement. Charlie Rex, who berated the public and said, "I don’t think we deserve to be strung up," obviously felt that he and the others were being unjustly chastised. Terry Aldridge commented, "I resent the attempt to force me to choose sides...." Tim Beck, with some fervor, said that over the last few years the assembly had become more politicized, and that he was "Tired of it!" Bonnie Williams, who was clearly quite annoyed, pointed out that she had apologized numerous times for her mistake, and apologized again. Guy Sattley took apparent exception to one commentator’s assumptions that the entire assembly were members of political parties, and that partisan politics were inescapable and to be expected. Yet the anger displayed in that room was not, contrary to Williams’ assertion on Problem Corner, "venomous, poisonous hatred." Some comments, in a very few cases, did show a bit of nastiness and great anger—but even these opinions were presented calmly and reasonedly. In fact, quite a bit of humor was displayed at the meeting, as when Donna Gilbert referred to herself and her "left-wing friends" such as Douglas Yates as ‘playing in the same league’ on this issue; or when Mike Prax brought a small hangman’s noose, saying the assembled citizens had forgotten to bring their rope; or when Nancy Webb gently chided the assembly members and brought a sign with a big ≥3 on it, and a bag of ‘memory pills.’ There were many laughs—and, for the most part, not vindictive or mean-spirited ones, either. The public, in fact, was not out to lynch the assembly members—but the people definitely DID want to be heard, and they definitely were NOT happy with the secret meeting and in particular, those who organized it. While it may have felt like a flogging to those who were participants in the secret meeting—three solid hours of criticism is hard for anybody to take—the principle of nonpartisan, transparent government was clearly extremely important to almost everyone in the room,* and almost everyone testifying felt that this principle as well as common sense had been violated. The public clearly felt a need to explain that they saw the secret meeting as an egregious insult to the public trust, not a minor mistake in reading the rules. These essential facts are something that assembly members Williams and Rex—or any government official—ignore at their political peril. A few quotes from the public testimony illustrate the range of thoughts that evening: Maryann Einiger: "Nonpartisan politics is probably the best way to do problem solving." Kevin Karrella: "I think the censure is an overkill and [the issue] has been blown out of proportion." Skip Lipscomb: "I think the only correct and honorable thing to do is resign." Sean McGuire: "This has been a bad month for right-wing moralizers." Dirk Nelson: "When people say that the public trust has been injured, I thought, how do you injure something that’s dead?" Birch Pavelsky: "The insult that was suffered by borough residents is part of a trend." Cole Sonafrank: "You indeed cannot adequately caucus in public. Duh! that’s the point!" David Valentine: "This is an issue of public trust." Alas, from comments made both during the meeting and since then, it is clear that Charlie Rex and Bonnie Williams do not understand the implications of what they did, nor why the public was so angry. Rex introduced a substitute resolution of censure that removed any reference to damage to the assembly’s credibility or to breach of the public trust. In so doing, he demonstrated that he missed the point—a point brought up over and over by those testifying. Williams, who has repeatedly characterized her action as an inadvertent breaking of a procedural rule, and thus apparently not worth the tremendous fuss that has resulted, evidently sees "the intense public criticism...[as] an attack of Democratic opportunism," according to Amanda Bohman in a Nov. 16 Fairbanks Daily News-Miner article. Yet this view belies the facts, which were that staunch conservatives, Republicans and Libertarians as well as independent voters, were agreeing with Greens, Democrats, and independent liberals. The concerns expressed were raised across the political spectrum, at this assembly meeting and elsewhere (for example, on Michael Duke’s conservative AM radio talk show, where Williams has been a regular guest). It’s too bad that Williams and others seem to think that such broad-based views are merely personal or political diatribe. To dismiss the public’s views as vitriol and mob mentality is to miss an opportunity to strengthen the responsiveness and effectiveness of borough government. This seeking of a postive way to deal with the situation at the borough was the other important thing that I noticed at the assembly meeting. As Cynthia Henry said, "People do care about this." There are many ways to improve local government. Involving the populace in their own government on an ongoing basis—not just during election time—is the best way to alleviate the fear that somehow elected or appointed officials are trying to control government for the enrichment of themselves or their friends. But how can this be done? There were many good ideas and positively framed suggestions given for improving government. Among these were: the state legislature should no longer exempt itself from the open meetings law (reiterated several times); a blue-ribbon panel of citizens should be assembled to assist in writing ethics and conduct code for the borough (happening now at the instigation of Hank Bartos, presiding officer); community councils should be created to increase public involvement in government. Other ideas that have cropped up in conversations I’ve had with people since the meeting continue on these themes: prevent political parties from donating to candidates running for nonpartisan office; provide free airtime for all political candidates; establish a participatory budgeting process for the borough; establish a deliberation day as a companion to voting day (a holiday one week in advance of voting for a community-wide day of political discussion); and citizen panels or juries, not just advisory boards or public hearings, as a routine part of decision making and planning. Many people feel alienated from governance, yet they could exert significant influence at the local level with established institutions. Randy Franks brought up a pertinent point: across the borough, there are numerous road service districts that are begging for road commissioners. Right here in Ester, for example, we have long had only two members on what should be a three-person commission. This kind of post—on local commissions and advisory boards—is one of the best ways to have a direct hand in what happens to us. Getting involved, rather than expecting someone else to do the work, is where the opportunity lies to keep government open, transparent, and responsive to our needs. Handing it to someone else who may not understand why open government is important, on the other hand, is a sure way to give away control over our own lives. *Mike Prax, a former assemblyman, after saying that "secret meetings aren’t necessarily the problem, and open meetings aren’t necessarily the answer" (there were some nods of agreement to this statement), crossed a line when he added that the essential and perhaps only necessary ‘open meeting’ was called an election—and after that openness wasn’t important. [Yours truly was so startled by this idea that she did not, unfortunately, get an exact quote.] He was soundly booed by the meeting’s attendees, to which he responded that he’d "been in the minority before," and was used to it. | ||
 | | |
