09
Aug
2005
I recently invested in a comprehensive Oxford English Dictionary and have been reacquainting myself with words whose traditional meanings and usage might have been lost, or at least grossly distorted within modern-day politics. Take "representative," especially as it relates to elected city officials. Oxford defines "representative" as "acting on behalf of a large body of people in governing or legislating." Davenport's mayor and city council no longer meet the definition of representative government.
Take, for instance, the remarks of Mayor Charlie Brooke, in an address to DavenportOne members in June 2004, when he said that city government has never been a true democracy, but is "a representative form of government in which voters have to trust the people they elect to do what is right for them and in the best interest of Davenport." The operative word here is "trust," which is glaringly absent in today's politics, no less so in Davenport's political arena.
With regard to the major issues (such as the new stormwater tax, the development agreement for a casino expansion on a critical portion of Davenport's riverfront, Cobblestone housing development, and TIF for Lee Enterprises headquarters, for starters) that have confronted city hall in the past two years, the council has consistently voted in direct opposition, if not in defiance, of public consensus. Instead, the council has repeatedly represented special interests at the expense of its core constituency - Davenport taxpayers, who make up the "large body" that the mayor and council are supposed to represent.
Most of the above-mentioned issues and their outcomes were the result of activity behind closed doors, allowing for relatively little public input, all of which was unceremoniously ignored each time. This political arrogance is eroding any semblance of trust that might have been lingering. But this is only the beginning.
More alarming than ever is the lack of civic leadership across the council and staff spectrum in Davenport. There is virtually no independent thinking on the parts of seven of the 10 aldermen who currently serve, and the three (Lynn, Ambrose, and Meyer) who manage to stand on some principle with their votes at a minimum can articulate why they did or did not support an issue. Granted, the city staff and council did not agree with DavenportOne on the stormwater tax issue, but clearly, most of the aldermen, many of the city staff, and most certainly the mayor are heavily influenced by DavenportOne. D1's agenda is not entirely disclosed, but appears to be narrowly beneficial (e.g., a $250,000 grant from the RDA during their lobbying for a riverfront parking ramp and hotel) and reflects a disturbing political emphasis that is curious for a nonpartisan chamber of commerce.
With respect to the casino expansion, the seven aldermen (Howard, Engelmann, Ahrens, Barnhill, Bushek, McGivern, and Moritz) who voted in favor, to a man and woman, could not defend their votes. Each admitted that they were uniformed about the development agreement, had serious reservations about various components of the deal, and generally had no idea how it would benefit the city, yet voted it up, regardless.
This is a complete abdication of duty, and will cost residents untold millions. But for those of us who identify Davenport with the Mississippi River, it is a betrayal beyond words. Davenport's location on this grandest of rivers is what gives us our uniqueness, and provides a sense of place that is special and appealing. A flood wall has been proposed and defeated several times, yet this council and the lobbyists for the casino have disguised such a flood wall within an eight-foot landscaped berm under the proposed new hotel. Was this "representative" government to vote to destroy the very thing that gives our city an edge?
It would be hard for things to get any worse in Davenport, but hold on: It very well could! There is a current proposal to further limit public input during some council meetings and eliminate it altogether during others, also providing the authority to censor citizens as necessary to avoid drama or embarrassment. This newly formed governance committee, which is supposed to be open to anyone who wants to join - that is, if you can figure out where and when meetings are being held - is currently composed of DavenportOne representatives and various aldermen who are in or out according to the political winds, Corporation Counsel Mary Thee, and a handful of concerned citizens. The purported time for the next governance committee is August 16 at 5:30 p.m. in council chambers at Davenport City Hall. These meetings will not be televised, so organizers need not worry about any undue public drama here.
Never mind that the governance committee is also looking to recommend staggered four-year terms for aldermen and the mayor, and to reduce the number of ward aldermen to six with four at-large seats. In summary, it provides for less representation, not more, and reflects the mindset of those currently seated.
A DavenportOne representative at a recent governance-committee meeting stated that she knew of many citizens who would come down to city hall to participate but do not want "to be part of the drama or circus" at such meetings. While there may be drama, and meetings might sometimes resemble a circus, keep in mind that the reasons for such drama are far more complex than a few "usual suspects" who speak at every public opportunity. If asking tough questions of our representatives in public doesn't yield accountability, how will such inquiries in less-public forums yield more? The fact that Davenport is a charter city and can thus take actions on behalf of its citizens that other cities in Iowa would have to hold a referendum on is a primary example of the systemic dysfunctionality behind all the drama. If there was a referendum on such far-reaching financial and economic-development issues (remember the county referendum for Vision Iowa? - Just Say Yes!) then concerned citizens would have a context and deadline to get informed, and be assured that their wishes (via their vote) counted.
Not here in Davenport. The council elected to bond for $15 million to finance one-third of the proposed casino hotel and at the same time elected to borrow $7 million from the casino at an even higher rate of return as part of the property-tax rebate. If your company conducted itself in this manner, do you think there would be a little drama at the board meeting? Maybe this town needs a little more drama to remind its elected officials what the true definition of "representative" government is.
Next week: More details on yet another attempt to circumvent representation and accountability - the proposed Davenport Levee Development Corporation.
Take, for instance, the remarks of Mayor Charlie Brooke, in an address to DavenportOne members in June 2004, when he said that city government has never been a true democracy, but is "a representative form of government in which voters have to trust the people they elect to do what is right for them and in the best interest of Davenport." The operative word here is "trust," which is glaringly absent in today's politics, no less so in Davenport's political arena.
With regard to the major issues (such as the new stormwater tax, the development agreement for a casino expansion on a critical portion of Davenport's riverfront, Cobblestone housing development, and TIF for Lee Enterprises headquarters, for starters) that have confronted city hall in the past two years, the council has consistently voted in direct opposition, if not in defiance, of public consensus. Instead, the council has repeatedly represented special interests at the expense of its core constituency - Davenport taxpayers, who make up the "large body" that the mayor and council are supposed to represent.
Most of the above-mentioned issues and their outcomes were the result of activity behind closed doors, allowing for relatively little public input, all of which was unceremoniously ignored each time. This political arrogance is eroding any semblance of trust that might have been lingering. But this is only the beginning.
More alarming than ever is the lack of civic leadership across the council and staff spectrum in Davenport. There is virtually no independent thinking on the parts of seven of the 10 aldermen who currently serve, and the three (Lynn, Ambrose, and Meyer) who manage to stand on some principle with their votes at a minimum can articulate why they did or did not support an issue. Granted, the city staff and council did not agree with DavenportOne on the stormwater tax issue, but clearly, most of the aldermen, many of the city staff, and most certainly the mayor are heavily influenced by DavenportOne. D1's agenda is not entirely disclosed, but appears to be narrowly beneficial (e.g., a $250,000 grant from the RDA during their lobbying for a riverfront parking ramp and hotel) and reflects a disturbing political emphasis that is curious for a nonpartisan chamber of commerce.
With respect to the casino expansion, the seven aldermen (Howard, Engelmann, Ahrens, Barnhill, Bushek, McGivern, and Moritz) who voted in favor, to a man and woman, could not defend their votes. Each admitted that they were uniformed about the development agreement, had serious reservations about various components of the deal, and generally had no idea how it would benefit the city, yet voted it up, regardless.
This is a complete abdication of duty, and will cost residents untold millions. But for those of us who identify Davenport with the Mississippi River, it is a betrayal beyond words. Davenport's location on this grandest of rivers is what gives us our uniqueness, and provides a sense of place that is special and appealing. A flood wall has been proposed and defeated several times, yet this council and the lobbyists for the casino have disguised such a flood wall within an eight-foot landscaped berm under the proposed new hotel. Was this "representative" government to vote to destroy the very thing that gives our city an edge?
It would be hard for things to get any worse in Davenport, but hold on: It very well could! There is a current proposal to further limit public input during some council meetings and eliminate it altogether during others, also providing the authority to censor citizens as necessary to avoid drama or embarrassment. This newly formed governance committee, which is supposed to be open to anyone who wants to join - that is, if you can figure out where and when meetings are being held - is currently composed of DavenportOne representatives and various aldermen who are in or out according to the political winds, Corporation Counsel Mary Thee, and a handful of concerned citizens. The purported time for the next governance committee is August 16 at 5:30 p.m. in council chambers at Davenport City Hall. These meetings will not be televised, so organizers need not worry about any undue public drama here.
Never mind that the governance committee is also looking to recommend staggered four-year terms for aldermen and the mayor, and to reduce the number of ward aldermen to six with four at-large seats. In summary, it provides for less representation, not more, and reflects the mindset of those currently seated.
A DavenportOne representative at a recent governance-committee meeting stated that she knew of many citizens who would come down to city hall to participate but do not want "to be part of the drama or circus" at such meetings. While there may be drama, and meetings might sometimes resemble a circus, keep in mind that the reasons for such drama are far more complex than a few "usual suspects" who speak at every public opportunity. If asking tough questions of our representatives in public doesn't yield accountability, how will such inquiries in less-public forums yield more? The fact that Davenport is a charter city and can thus take actions on behalf of its citizens that other cities in Iowa would have to hold a referendum on is a primary example of the systemic dysfunctionality behind all the drama. If there was a referendum on such far-reaching financial and economic-development issues (remember the county referendum for Vision Iowa? - Just Say Yes!) then concerned citizens would have a context and deadline to get informed, and be assured that their wishes (via their vote) counted.
Not here in Davenport. The council elected to bond for $15 million to finance one-third of the proposed casino hotel and at the same time elected to borrow $7 million from the casino at an even higher rate of return as part of the property-tax rebate. If your company conducted itself in this manner, do you think there would be a little drama at the board meeting? Maybe this town needs a little more drama to remind its elected officials what the true definition of "representative" government is.
Next week: More details on yet another attempt to circumvent representation and accountability - the proposed Davenport Levee Development Corporation.
