Bad Links?
Other glitches?
Notify Webmaster

F’ville’s politics of silence = politics of defeat

By BEN NELMS

I continue to be amazed at the way some elected officials will sometimes forget that they are put into office by voters and accountable to the citizens of their community.

Elected officials, including those in Fayetteville, often do a superb job at handling the myriad complex issues that arise in the life of a city. And in performing that good job they are serving the public that put them there in the first place.

Running a city is far from an easy task. In fact, it’s often a thankless job that most citizens would not want.

Yet, in apparent moments of memory lapse, or worse, some mayors and councils forget that they are not running a private company. And if you dare challenge them, you are branded in public or private as an instigator or troublemaker or worse.

Before coming here a few months ago, I’ve covered several county commissions and city councils that were excellent examples of what it means to serve the public.

Other boards, unfortunately, were eventually considered by their constituents as having assumed the role of monarchs after being elected.

And I’ve seen citizens belittled and intimidated for daring to speak out. Some in elected office practice the political version of the “big fish in a little pond” phenomenon.

Maybe you’ve seen it, too. Before being elected they say, “I really need your vote, your vote is important. And if you vote for me I’ll be there for you, I’ll represent you.”

But once elected, a mysterious transformation occurs. That former pledge of unbridled representation becomes one of distance and seclusion.

Before long the attitude morphs into, “Don’t question me, just believe what I tell you. Just leave me alone and let me do my job.”

They make a big noise and shoot themselves in the foot and then blame the public and the press for noticing. Fortunately, those in elected office were usually voted out.

For those elected officials to whom this occasionally applies, voters don’t usually see this phenomenon manifested until a hot-button issue surfaces. Enter Fayetteville, spring 2005.

The current maelstrom surrounding the Fayetteville Police Department appeared to have began as allegation by a lone disgruntled former employee.

But things quickly gathered steam until the political will of the mayor and council shifted and, coincidentally, the police chief and major called it quits.

Those in the upper echelons of city government say the two are in no way connected.

Uh huh. But maybe FDR said it best half a century ago, “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.”

Following quickly on the coattails of the May 5 council meeting where so many current and former officers, interested citizens and the press attended, some city employees were helped to understand that their presence at the May 19 council meeting would not serve any purpose.

Well, the city manager (or with whomever the “suggestion” originated), is an extremely intelligent man, easily capable of determining the subtleties built in to that otherwise innocuous statement.

Think about it. Regardless of your employer, public or private, if your boss or your bosses boss told you that attending a particular meeting would serve no purpose, would you attend anyway?

And in the presence of what had been described by numerous current and former coworkers as a hostile work environment, would you risk going? Would you fear any possible retribution?

The council’s prolonged silence on morale issues in the PD was supposedly based on complaints to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Hence neither the symptom nor the cause could be addressed.

Many of you reading this have spent years in management. It is axiomatic that silence on a given issue equals one’s consent to the parameters of that issue.

Speaking up and speaking out, even for elected officials, is the way to illuminate one’s position on the issue at hand.

Otherwise, by our silence we agree. Mayor Steele rules. Others acquiesce.

My main issue today, and in the future, is the First Amendment. It’s well enough for a mayor to cut people off or make veiled accusations while they try to make statements or ask questions in a public meeting.

It’s quite another thing for a city government to suggest, by any means, that its employees forego their First Amendment rights.

If the right to speak freely, to assemble or to seek a redress of grievances no longer exists in Fayetteville, then it is truly time for a change.

This is not some kind of game. Everyone is an adult. The politics of silence equals the reality of consent. And the politics of intimidation is the politics of defeat.