After being on Springfield’s City Council for almost 15 months, I have seen a couple of developments that I truly hope do not grow into a local trend.  These developments can be summed up as an “all or nothing” or zero-sum viewpoint that automatically slams the door on any type of negotiations or compromise.  In my opinion, this is not a good thing in a representative democracy.

         The first example appeared when members of the Mayor’s Commission on Human Rights and Community Relations—following a year of re-structuring and redefining the Commission—listed a number of goals and objectives that they would like to see accomplished and, in their opinion, would make Springfield a better place for all citizens.  These goals numbered more than 50 and the combined initial cost is approximately a half-million dollars.

         However, when the Commission was asked to prioritize their more than 50 objectives because the City could not fund all of the items, the Commission declined—stating, essentially, that “To choose one over the other would be to decide which population should be served at the expense of another.”  I understand their reticence, but I also think they have done a great disservice to those populations they purport to help.  They have chosen take a position that some would describe as being “in an ivory tower” where they can safely criticize the efforts of others, but don’t have to get their hands dirty in the real work of trying to allocate scarce resources where there are clearly more needs than resources.

In fact, the Commission’s refusal to develop a priority list put in mind this quote below that is attributed to former President Theodore Roosevelt:

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, . . .who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

         One thing that I have appreciated about our current City Council is that it is willing to tackle the tough or controversial issues.  And it will tackle this one.  The Council—in the absence or recommendations from those on the Mayor’s Commission—will prioritize the list and we will work our way through the process to make Springfield a fair, equitable, and welcoming place to live, work, and go to school.

         The second example occurred just last week at the City Council meeting.  Members of the OneAirAlliance—following a successful motion to exempt not-for-profit, state-licensed organizations from the city-wide smoking ban—decided to snatch up their marbles and go home, after asking their supporters on Council to withdraw the draft ordinance.  Apparently, if Alliance members couldn’t impose their opinions and rules on everyone in the City, they didn’t wish to even discuss options to compromise.  I find that to be a pretty immature attitude and one that reflects a complete misunderstanding of how a municipal representative democracy works.

         Already, there is a small grass-roots group forming to continue to work on the issue of smoking in our city.  This group, recognizing that there are some significant issues with the current ordinance, is attempting to get a number of disparate folks together—tobacconists, private clubs, restaurant and bar owners, members of the Hotel-Motel Association, representatives from the Springfield-Greene County Health Department, and others.  Representatives from the OneAirAlliance will be invited; whether they choose to participate remains to be seen. 

         Again, the all-or-nothing, line-in-the-sand, dig-in-our-heels approaches do not work very well in a democracy.  They may gain viewership on news talk shows, such as are featured on MSNBC or FoxNews, but they don’t work very well when a City Council is charged with representing all the folks in the city—not just the one-issue groups.  Springfield deserves better.