Editorial 7.10, Octber 2005, by Deirdre Helfferich Isn't It Obvious? The borough brouhaha over the junkyard ordinance once again brought out a significant problem in the assembly’s interactions with the public: a dynamic of antagonism in local government. During the last several years, the borough assembly and the public have frequently been at loggerheads, with high emotion shown at meetings by assembly members and public alike. From overt partisanship to lack of accountability to a penchant for secretiveness to a failure to recognize the value of avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest, the assembly has suffered from members whose contempt for the public and the rights of the people has been consistent and insufferable. This, of course, has led the public to distrust and fear the motives and actions of the assembly as a whole, and to consequent poor interactions. The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, in three recent editorials, showed stunning stupidity with regard to the assembly’s problems—and a curious parallel in its treatment of readers. The first editorial, published Sept. 25, “Assembly inaction,” insulted the assembly and mayor for ‘having spines like Jell-O’ and the public for having the audacity to want badly conceived ordinances stricken from the books. Apparently defense of property rights and an independent and Alaskan way of life (and recycling!) are equivalent “to proclaim[ing] that the borough really shouldn’t enforce the laws that it passes.” The editor obviously didn’t hear the many people who testified that, while they agreed that good law should be enforced, that bad law, in particular the junkyard ordinance and the references to it in the code enforcement ordinance, should be removed. A few people expressed concern about the borough taking on police powers the people had not granted—not a frivolous matter. No one complained about ordinances regarding illegal burning, illegal subdivisions, fencing, blocking visibility at an intersection, or improperly storing hazardous waste, as snidely implied by the News-Miner—at least not that I heard. The editorial didn’t even mention the junkyard ordinance, which was the overwhelming concern of the public. Funny that the newspaper missed that, given the more than forty people and three-odd hours they spent talking about it. Perhaps the News-Miner editor was listening to a different meeting. My impression is that if the junkyard ordinance had not been on the list of ordinances to be enforced, not a peep would have been heard from the public. Members of the assembly reacted variously, some acknowledging the public’s concerns, such as Luke Hopkins and Earl Romans, and some treating the people with disdain, such as Bonnie Williams, who boldly asserted that all the rest of the borough disagreed with those who showed up at the meeting. (Wonder how she knew that?) Hopkins, praised by the News-Miner for having some guts, did not insult the public, as Charlie Rex did. Hopkins’ respectful disagreement was far more appropriate behavior than Rex’s outrage (and avoidance of the issue) or Williams’ blatant contempt and disregard of the public’s concerns. The News-Miner editorial of Thursday, Oct. 13, “Code enforcement II,” simply re-emphasized the paper’s unwillingness to accept that the Fairbanks public remembers that it is in Alaska. (At least this time, the paper realized that the subject at hand was how the code deals with “junkyards,” also known as piles of useful stuff.) Even more people came to testify at the second assembly meeting dealing with the code enforcement ordinance. Esteroid Jeff Rogers reminded Fairbanks and the assembly of its heart. Rogers told listeners of Irene Sherman, the “Belle of Fairbanks,” who lived downtown and collected items others had thrown away, turning them into things she could sell or trade or use herself. Irene was well-loved in Fairbanks, although poor and eccentric and with a stack of stuff in her yard; when she died, Fairbanks was bereft. Rogers pointed out that it is the poor and the thrifty who are most likely to be hurt by this ordinance. The News-Miner's callous editorial suggested the “assembly perhaps could consider including the junkyard provision but postponing its effective date for a year or two,” and castigated Borough Mayor Jim Whittaker for modifying the proposal in accordance with the public’s wishes, thereby demonstrating that the paper had completely missed the point—but that some of our elected officials had gotten it. In the third editorial, “What does it mean?” published Oct. 6, the News-Miner's evident lack of understanding of the election results led its editor to wonder dazedly if perhaps the public didn’t understand who they were voting for. That’s exactly the sort of attitude that I believe led the voters to “throw the bums out.” The News-Miner's disbelieving speculation that the voters must not have realized that Ralph Seekins et al. were supporters of those who failed to win shows exactly the same kind of contempt for the public that the former assembly members have shown. I think the voters knew exactly who they voted for, and what they stood for. Winners Beck, Foote, and Therrien (the ones whose wins really stumped the News-Miner editor) ran on campaigns for OPEN GOVERNMENT! They said to the public, in effect, “We won’t hold secret meetings. We will communicate with you, let you know what’s going on, respect your rights and your wishes, avoid conflicts of interest.” They talked to the public about integrity, and public participation, and respect. This has nothing to do with whether a politician is left-leaning or right-leaning—as the News-Miner editor seemed to think—zilch to do with which party he or she belongs to, zippo to do with conservatism or liberalism. It has to do with basic human decency and the essential role of a person in government: that of public servant. A servant of the public seeks to represent and work for the public, respects the public, respects the public’s anger, fear, concerns, desires. A person in public office has a duty to seek out and to accept the public’s opinion—and to try to understand it. The assembly has been very short on these attitudes in the last few years, and it seems pretty clear to this voter that the public is sick and tired of being treated like a snotrag. Let’s hope that the current assembly, old and new members alike, recognize this with greater clarity than the editors of the News-Miner. Perhaps the antagonism between the public and the borough government will be replaced with a cooperative, problem-solving, and participatory approach. | ||
 | | |
