On October 8, 2015, the City Council discussed how to address properties within the city that have overgrown weeds, disabled vehicles, and “other unsightly or dangerous properties.” Alderman Earnest Gay, who had placed the item on the meeting agenda, said
I’m sure everybody out there has somebody that you, within a stone’s throw, that you, that’s got a piece of property that you just wish they would clean it up and make it look a little nicer
The City Marshal’s wife, Heather Leal, added her own suggestion to the audience, saying
Or set fire to and let them burn to the ground.
Perhaps Leal made the comment in a semi-joking manner. The problem, however, is that Leal has been allowed to have a different sort of status at City Council meetings than other people. Most people are discouraged by Council members from participating in meetings and asking questions. That is, except for Leal, who regularly engages with Council members in meetings.
Not only is Leal given different treatment by the City Council, but she is allowed to answer questions from the Council that are directed at her husband for City Marshal duties and responsibilities.
It wouldn’t be acceptable for a city representative to suggest burning down houses even in a joking way. It also wouldn’t be acceptable for a city employee to suggest something like that. Leal is neither of these two, but she’s treated as the 2nd and that is where the problem is.
The City Council needs to decide who is allowed to speak at meetings and when they are allowed to do so. A habit has formed where if a Council member doesn’t mind answering a question from an audience member they do so. But if they don’t like a question, they bring up a law that says they can’t discuss anything with the audience.
For the sake of clarity, the Council needs to figure out how it wants to conduct meetings. Part of that conduct needs to clearly define how audience members are treated, and give all non City Council members equal status.
Comments are closed.