Several days ago, I wrote a piece for the Springfield News-Leader in which I was pointing out that there are times where we on Council are human, can be inconsistent, or sometimes just plain wrong.  Some have interpreted my comments as a de facto criticism of some of my colleagues.  This was not trhe case.

Because of the 400-word space requirements of the News-Leader, I could not say everything that I wanted to, so will pick up the rest in this blog posting.

In the earlier piece, I had pointed out that we on Council sometimes appear to be inconsistent. I will probably be guilty of this appearance over the next couple of weeks as we have several votes coming up.

Unless I hear additional reasons that are sufficient to sway my current opinion, I plan to vote against the ordinance allowing chickens within the city limits.  Essentially, the reasons are the same that caused livestock was moved out of the municipalities around 50 years ago:  disease, stench, and filth. Those have not been eliminated; therefore, I will vote against this ordinance because of the public health issue involved.

However, I can be accused of a flip-flop when the vote on Smoking in the Workplace comes around.  Again, the caveat is whether additional information is forthcoming during the public hearing that will change my mind.

The current reasons that I oppose this ordinance is that it was presented as a occupational safety issue.  However, the draft ordinance—as it is now written—goes far, far beyond the issues of workplace safety.  It appears to be a backdoor approach to simply outlaw smoking, period.

I also feel there have been some "statistical shenanigans" brought into play during this debate. Workplaces are controlled by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.  The proponents for this ordinance are using stats from the Environmental Protection Agency.  This is a perfect example of trying to make an untenable position appear to be stronger than it is.

In addition, my wife and I go to three particular restaurants on a fairly regular basis.  All three are non-smoking and, in talking with the owners, I found all three to feel that the restaurant or bar owner should have the right to decide which audience to try to cater to.  None of the three would convert to a smoking location because they are happy with their clientele as it is currently constituted.

Finally, we are still in a recession.  This ordinance would result in the loss of jobs and the closing of at least two businesses and maybe more.  I feel Council should be working on things that will create a positive business climate and sustain jobs if possible, and—if not—at least not force the elimination of jobs.

So, I will be inconsistent as well.  It goes with the territory—depending on the issue—and I will—in all likelihood—be criticized by the “political purists.”  And that’s as it should be.  That also goes with the territory.