In "my view," it was your actions that were "inappropriate." ("Our View: Kubby's Actions Were Inappropriate," Sept. 25, 1996).
You have demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of elected officials in a democracy.
Let me first make clear that I am not addressing (a) the Shaw shooting, (b) Ms. Kubby's abilities (though I agree with you she is "bright," "articulate," and "genuinely concerned, dedicated and capable"), or (c) the specific tactics used to organize citizen protest.
My vigorous disagreement with your editorial involves the propriety of a public official's "encouraging protest" and "taking sides," because they are "like a judge" and "on their (the council's) team" and "a house divided cannot stand."
City Council members are not "like a judge." They are more like legislators, caught up in the whirl of politics in the best sense (not that of "party"). The old song lyrics, "Which side are you on, boys?" pose their political task. Of course politicians are "taking sides." That's why we elect them.
If we wanted the lock-step uniformity of a "team" with consensus, if we truly wanted to avoid "a house divided," we would not have multi-member political bodies. We would elect only a president, a governor, a county administrator, and a city manager.
The reason we have a city council is because we want to "encourage protest." We value a range of points of view, of "sides," of diversity. We think a "marketplace of ideas" produces better government, a better city.
We all have the "right to petition" our government. We can attend City Council meetings and talk with council members. But few of us do so unless we have a lot at stake.
In a democracy, the special interests are heard. It's as true in Iowa City as in Washington. They give campaign contributions. (Yes, there are campaign contributions to city and county officials.) They get their phone calls returned promptly. They know what the council is up to when their interests are at stake. They can afford lawyers and lobbyists. They can talk with each council member.
Suppose a council member calls a developer, a local merchant, or the chamber, to provide a "heads up" on a new regulation. ("If you guys don't like what we're about to do you best get yourselves over here.") Is that encouraging protest? Of course it is. Is that "inappropriate"? Of course not.
Nor is it "inappropriate" for a council member to alert those of us who have smaller interests, no organization, and no lobbyists. How else will the city government avoid becoming a bazaar of benefits for the wealthy and powerful? We need more public involvement in City government, more "encouraging of protest," not less.
Karen Kubby deserves our thanks and applause -- and your apology -- not criticism.
# # #
[As submitted, this "Letter to the Editor" contained the following two paragraphs prior to the one beginning, "In a democracy, the special interests are heard." It was deleted, presumably for length:
When I sat on the Iowa City Broadband and Telecommunications Commission we would invite the public to televised hearings. My students (required to attend) would often be the only audience. The issues? Millions of dollars sucked out of Iowa City by a distant cable company and the programming that fills the minds of subscribers and children. Yet few show up.
Representatives of the cable company attend every meeting. They never fail to express their demands and concerns.]
Return to Nicholas Johnson Home Page