MY TURN: Big brother? Local autonomy or state control?

A short survey. Do you want the federal government telling the state how to do things? How to conduct their business? If not, do you want the state telling the local cities how to do things? How to conduct their business? Ronald Reagan said that governance should be at the most local possible.  

When a local councilmember doesn’t get his/her way locally, should they run to a political ally who is a state representative and have that representative create and insert text into a statute that allows them to circumvent the local procedure and process? Isn’t that kind of “swampish?” 

Since its inception, Hayden has conducted council meetings basically by procedure resolution and has never had any issues. Hayden has not adopted Robert's Rules. Hayden has not needed to. If you watch what Robert's actually does; it heavily favors the majority. Yes, the minority gets a voice, but as soon as a minority speaker begins to touch on something that the majority is sensitive about, or doesn’t want made public, the majority “calls the question” and a, usually voice, vote ends the discussion. Not really transparent.  

The reason Hayden’s process has worked, until recently, has been because of the respect between the councilmembers, staff and citizens. There, most likely, was no need for Robert's Rules, or some other formal procedure manual. Councilmembers were allowed the time to talk, express their full thought and opinion and civil discussion and debate usually ensued.  

The accepted process and procedure related to the issue that precipitated this situation (the Consent Calendar and the ability of a single councilmember to remove an item from the Calendar) was respected and followed. The process served the city and council well, until recently.  

The accepted and followed process was that ALL councilmembers had access, and the opportunity, to discuss the agenda items with the mayor PRIOR to posting the agenda. ANY councilmember had the opportunity to request that an item be removed, or added, to the Consent Calendar, and/or moved to a discussion or action item. It served the city well, until recently. 

What happened recently? A particular councilmember rarely communicates with the mayor. This councilmember rarely takes the opportunity to communicate with the mayor regarding concerns related to the Consent Calendar and the agenda. Instead, this councilmember waits until the meeting and, then in session, requests to remove items from the Consent Calendar.  

The items usually requested have almost always been used for the expression of personal, political and/or ideological, philosophical beliefs. In my opinion, political grandstanding. Often, the request is related to routine items, but the councilmember usually wants politically, party or ideologically aligned people, businesses or issues given special consideration.  

Why, one must ask, doesn’t/hasn’t this councilmember followed the process that all other councilmembers currently follow, and have followed, since the inception of the city council meetings? Why doesn’t this councilmember take the opportunity to discuss the items and their placement with the mayor prior to the posting of the agenda. Why does this councilmember wait until the council meeting to request the removal? Why does this councilmember, I believe, knowingly and premeditatedly, interrupt the flow of the meeting?  

If this councilmember would simply follow the process and procedure that all other councilmembers follow, and communicate prior to the meeting, it is likely that the items of concern would be removed or placed as this councilmember wishes.  

Instead, this councilmember creates this disruption, disunity and mistrust among the citizens of Hayden. This councilmember, along with “associates,” spread misinformation on social media and other sites and stir up the unknowing community members who are uneducated about the process and procedure, resulting in community mistrust.  

Instead, this councilmember runs to a local central committee ally who is a state representative, to create a paragraph of legislative text (currently HB 172) to inject into an existing statute, under the guise of “clarifying,” that will MANDATE the city to allow the councilmember to singularly, in open session, disrupt the flow of what is supposed to be routine approval (the Consent Calendar). This legislation will facilitate this councilmember continuing the practice of using the tactic to make personal, political and ideological statements.  

Each city is unique. Yes, most cities, not all, do allow a councilmember, on occasion, to request removal of a consent item during the meeting. But most city councils that I have watched don’t have members requesting removal of an item for the purpose of political expression. However, Hayden, in its long-established process, (local autonomy) has always had the procedure of communication PRIOR to posting of the agenda. It is as simple as this councilmember communicating with the mayor. Maybe? If this councilmember would communicate with the mayor, PRIOR to the posting of the agenda, the items would be placed elsewhere on the agenda for discussion or action? Why doesn’t this councilmember simply do that? 

The city of Hayden, in fact, all cities, need and deserve the autonomy to develop their own process and procedure to deal with situations just like this and this legislation removes that autonomy from the city.

• • •

Ed DePriest is a Hayden resident.