By Linda Milhaven
At Tuesday’s City Council meeting, Barry Graham and Adam Kwasman led one of the most disrespectful displays I have witnessed in 30 years of watching City Council meetings. Jan Dubauskas and Kathy Littlefield were complicit.
They stifled discussion by preventing their colleagues from speaking and disputing Graham’s misstatements. They shouted over colleagues taking control of the meeting from the Mayor. They deprived residents at the meeting of the respect of a full discussion of their concerns.
The agenda item was to repeal the Sustainability Plan. The Kiva was full and for 90 minutes over 30 people spoke. All but three urged the Council NOT to repeal the plan. Most, if not all, of the speakers spent hours that night at the meeting and invested hundreds of hours and their expertise over the last three years to develop the plan.
After public comment, the Mayor made brief comments and Graham was the first Councilmember to speak. He made a brief speech repeating many of the lies about the plan that he and others have propagated. Then, he simultaneously made the motion to repeal the plan and the motion to call the question.
A motion to call the question is not debatable and if successful ends all discussion on the agenda item and calls for an immediate vote on the original motion.
Councilwoman Whitehead tried to speak, perhaps to ask a procedural question, but we don’t know because Kwasman and Graham repeatedly shouted her down calling “Out of Order” and “Point of Order”.
The motion to Call the Question passed with Councilwomen Littlefield and Dubauskas agreeing to block their colleagues from speaking,
The motion to repeal the Sustainability Plan passed with Graham, Kwasman, Littlefield and Dubaskas voting to repeal.
After the vote, Whitehead spoke up to thank the residents who showed up to speak and again was shouted down with calls that she was “Out of Order”.
Blocking debate is disrespectful to other Councilmembers and to the residents that invested their time to come to the meeting and to develop the plan.
I believe that as a community we are better than this and can have a full and open discussion even when we disagree. I hope going forward the new City Council will demonstrate more respect and decorum.
Graham propagates and perpetuates misinformation about the plan.
The Plan reads: “The plan is an aspirational document and not a mandate, so there are no penalties if targets are not met.” (p.8)
It also says; “The strategies and actions will encourage – but not require – residents, organizations and businesses to take steps that reduce water and waste costs, cool our City and provide better health outcomes.”(p.4)
And, “A case-by-case comparison of costs to benefits – including the cost of doing nothing ~ will identify projects that make financial sense.” (p.7)
If you would like to see the full plan, you can use the link above.
Despite Graham’s claims about the plan, it
- Does not ration or restrict electrical usage
- Does not ration or restrict water usage
- Does not require reducing trash output
- Does not outsource local control
- Does not redirect tax dollars. (Any new expenditures require Council approval.)
- Does not subject homes and businesses to monitoring or auditing
- Does not impose financial burdens on residents
If I am wrong, I welcome Councilmember Graham to point out the page numbers that substantiate his claims.
Until then, I hope Graham will accept his responsibility to represent issues honestly, correct inaccurate statements and not perpetuate misinformation.
The Sustainability Plan is the product of three years of work by residents and experts and extensive public outreach and comment. City Council received 325 emails with 258 urging the Council to keep the plan and make modifications if the Council thought they were necessary. Many of the 67 emails in opposition objected to the plan based on the misinformation that Graham and Littlefield proliferate.
Mayor Borowsky in her comments suggested a compromise respecting residents’ contributions to the plan and suggested a process to make modifications to address concerns.
Graham, Kwasman, Dubauskas and Littlefield instead turned a deaf ear to the residents who supported the plan. Perhaps they are only listen to the residents that repeat their lies.
As we move forward, it is my hope that Councilmembers will listen to residents, even when they disagree, and respect the outcome of significant resident efforts and extensive outreach. I hope they work to improve the work rather than to throw out all of their work to start over again.