10/19/09

On Votes after a Public Hearing

Madam Mayor,

On October 5^th, the city council held a public hearing regarding a condemnation ordinance that authorized eminent domain to seize private property for the E Street project. Many members of the public spoke passionately about their frustration over the E Street project. For many citizens, a public hearing seems to be the only official forum wherein they are solicited to speak for or against an ordinance. As a reflection of this, we saw long time members of the community brought to tears over this project and its impact on their lives. I got the sense that some spoke as if they wondered whether their pleas were falling on deaf ears.

Yet, after all of the impassioned testimony by members of the public, as soon as the hearing was closed, we council members voted on the ordinance without any discussion. My vote was in line with most of the public comments; yet for my part, I personally apologize to the public for not explaining my vote directly. I believe that in order to restore trust in government, the officials have a duty to explain their reasoning for or against a measure, especially when opposition to the ordinance is voiced by the public. Without that explanation, the public is left with the unfortunate impression that their input has no bearing on the vote their representatives take. Even for myself, I should have voiced my reasoning as to why I supported the vast majority of the comments by the public and voted against eminent domain.

I do understand that the discussions about E Street between members of the council have taken place over months and years. I believe that this directly led to the vote without discussion, since our positions were firmly decided before the public hearing. But that is a problem with the pubic hearing in the first place. If our positions are decided before we hold the public hearing, then wouldn’t that discourage citizens from giving their testimony? Why would they testify before us if it were for naught? What masochist would stand up in public and voice their concern if they believed that the public officials would disregard their testimony in the first place? Even in cases where we had long ago decided an argument in favor of one side versus the other, it is our duty to explain that line of reasoning to the public when they ask us to vote in one manner or another.

I urge my fellow members of the council to consider the public’s impression of government when defending or opposing legislation. It would be beneficial to see a correlation between input from the public and defense of our actions on behalf of the public. Even in cases where we believe it is necessary for us to vote against the wishes of those who testify, I believe it is necessary for us to explain our reasons to do so. It is at precisely the time when a course of action is the most difficult that it is essential for us to follow good principles. Anything less hides the motivations that our citizens wish us to expose. After all, sunshine is the best disinfectant.