No need for dissection
Good evening, class. On reflection, City Council member Dan Coffey's fascist comments from the public communications portion of Monday's council meeting don't require dissection or rebuttal. He can't possibly mean what he said.
In summary from the post below, here was his civics lesson:
Point 1: He contended the "we" are the ones who know what can be done, what's legal, and what money is available. Presumably, he meant the council, but I can't be sure.
Point 2: He said he doesn't read blogs and that he "figures anyone can hide behind a keyboard."
Point 3: By Coffey's lights, if you want to criticize, question, or otherwise participate in the public discussion of civic affairs, you must run for office (and presumably win). Otherwise, shut the hell up.
Point 4: In all fairness, Danny C. claimed to have held six town halls during his current term, but undermined his claim by then disinviting anyone who doesn't live in his district.
Tonight, I'll only quibble with Point 2. Who, may I ask, is hiding? My identity is not hidden. Neither is Roger's. Neither of us have erected barriers to free comment or password protected our blogs. Nobody here is hiding. My name, my e-mail, and my business are clearly discernible by clicking on my name and my profile. Furthermore, both Roger and I appeared before the council Monday evening. That doesn't constitute hiding, in my book.
I respect the function and dignity of the City Council and don't think it is a place for ad hominen attacks. I do think Mr. Coffey misspoke Monday night, so rather than dissect his comments, I'd rather invite him to retract and clarify them.
Mr. Coffey: Do you stand by your comments? Have I misstated what you actually said Monday night? If the summary above is accurate, would you like to clarify or restate your position vis-a-vis bloggers, citizen comment and petition, etc. Clearly you desire to serve your community. I simply can't believe you wish to stand by the statements that came out of your mouth in a public meeting.
So here's your chance. Drop us a note. Since you don't read blogs, have a friend print this out for you. If you don't have e-mail, write me a letter and I will meticulously transcribe it onto the Web for public view.
Further, we invite you to join us any of the next three Monday nights at Destinations Booksellers, where you can share with us your new vision for downtown New Albany. Our symposium is not designed for you to present, but we have absolutely no objection to hearing your views on how downtown can be preserved and rejuvenated. Just let us know which night and we'll turn over the program to hear your presentation. That way, you'll actually be the first presenter. Even if you can't make it, we've invited everyone with an interest to submit questions and ideas for the symposium and we'll be sure to treat yours with respect.
As an aside, the reason we excluded elected officials was to insulate them from the attack-oriented ambushers. We want a debate on ideas, not a forum to blame elected officials or make personal attacks.
In summary from the post below, here was his civics lesson:
Point 1: He contended the "we" are the ones who know what can be done, what's legal, and what money is available. Presumably, he meant the council, but I can't be sure.
Point 2: He said he doesn't read blogs and that he "figures anyone can hide behind a keyboard."
Point 3: By Coffey's lights, if you want to criticize, question, or otherwise participate in the public discussion of civic affairs, you must run for office (and presumably win). Otherwise, shut the hell up.
Point 4: In all fairness, Danny C. claimed to have held six town halls during his current term, but undermined his claim by then disinviting anyone who doesn't live in his district.
Tonight, I'll only quibble with Point 2. Who, may I ask, is hiding? My identity is not hidden. Neither is Roger's. Neither of us have erected barriers to free comment or password protected our blogs. Nobody here is hiding. My name, my e-mail, and my business are clearly discernible by clicking on my name and my profile. Furthermore, both Roger and I appeared before the council Monday evening. That doesn't constitute hiding, in my book.
I respect the function and dignity of the City Council and don't think it is a place for ad hominen attacks. I do think Mr. Coffey misspoke Monday night, so rather than dissect his comments, I'd rather invite him to retract and clarify them.
Mr. Coffey: Do you stand by your comments? Have I misstated what you actually said Monday night? If the summary above is accurate, would you like to clarify or restate your position vis-a-vis bloggers, citizen comment and petition, etc. Clearly you desire to serve your community. I simply can't believe you wish to stand by the statements that came out of your mouth in a public meeting.
So here's your chance. Drop us a note. Since you don't read blogs, have a friend print this out for you. If you don't have e-mail, write me a letter and I will meticulously transcribe it onto the Web for public view.
Further, we invite you to join us any of the next three Monday nights at Destinations Booksellers, where you can share with us your new vision for downtown New Albany. Our symposium is not designed for you to present, but we have absolutely no objection to hearing your views on how downtown can be preserved and rejuvenated. Just let us know which night and we'll turn over the program to hear your presentation. That way, you'll actually be the first presenter. Even if you can't make it, we've invited everyone with an interest to submit questions and ideas for the symposium and we'll be sure to treat yours with respect.
As an aside, the reason we excluded elected officials was to insulate them from the attack-oriented ambushers. We want a debate on ideas, not a forum to blame elected officials or make personal attacks.
posted by All4Word at 11:59 PM
2 Comments:
I was not at Monday's council meetings and did not hear Councilman Coffey's comments. But I have had several one-on-one conversations with him in recent weeks. I have not found him to be unreasonable or uncommunicative--as a matter of fact, I would describe those conversations as very cordial. I can't comment on anyone else's experience, only my own.
I think it is important to keep the lines of communication open with those folks currently representing the citizenry on the City Council, even if we disagree with their methods. I also think it is perfectly acceptable to voice disagreement, and I would hope our Council is listening when we do so. I would also hope that they will participate in the public forums and not viewing them as a public thrashing.
From what I can discern from the current climate among New Albany taxpayers, many of them want to participate more actively in the spending of our tax dollars and the shaping of the city's future. This would be something I hope our elected officials see as a very positive thing, worthy of support and nurturing.
I imagine Mr. Coffey can be quite cordial. His quickdraw reaction and words strike me as something he would like to clarify or retract.
I had no idea that Mr. Coffey was even aware of our upcoming symposium until he told us Monday he had planned to attend. My letter to council was carefully worded and intended to be a cordial invitation to attend. Quite obviously, Mr. Coffey did not understand it that way.
In no way was the upcoming symposium intended to force anyone's hand. Had we elected to feature elected officials (who, after all, already have a bimonthly forum to offer their ideas to the public), it could be construed as some type of command performance. If council members wish to have a town hall meeting, we'd be happy to offer our space for that at a future date.
Post a Comment
<< Home