council meeting

[Evan or Nancy Holmes <ncmholmes@moscow.com>]

Dear Visionaries;


The Moscow city council meeting on Monday was chucky-jam full of glimpses
into the mix of culture, custom, belief, power and helplessness that define
our town. Perhaps because of that, one significant and revealing event
occurred that has gone unmentioned in the reports. If this event has gone
unmentioned because it was unnoticed then maybe it is doubly significant.

There was an appeal to the city council to overturn the Board of
Adjustmentšs decision to deny a request for a conditional use permit. As
part of the appeal process the council conducted a public hearing. (The plot
is thicker actually because the council had previously considered the appeal
and granted the conditional use permit without a process that allowed
testimony from those opposed to the request. They decided to backtrack as a
belated attempt to level the playing field and to demonstrate their
fair-mindedness. Somewhat analogous to closing the barn door after the
horses escaped - a proper, albeit clumsy, gesture.)

The telling, yet overlooked, aspect of this hearing occurred when the
council/mayor/city attorney refused to allow me to speak at this public
hearing. Randy Fife, city attorney, interrupted my testimony and claimed
that because I was a member of the Board of Adjustment and that this matter
might be remanded to the Board I shouldnšt be allowed to testify. Still
doesnšt make any sense to me.

I donšt believe that one surrenders a right to free speech when accepting an
appointment to such a body. It is possible that if the matter was remanded
to the Board then the city attorney might insist I recuse myself from
further deliberation about the matter. Even then, not because I testified at
the council meeting but because I heard other testimony. They could even
permanently remove me from the Board if they thought my decision to testify
was such an egregious breach of order. But quite honestly, I was merely
trying to help the process. I donšt see how somebody can prejudice their
objectivity by speaking at a public hearing and listening to their own ideas
- shouldnšt we presume that they are pre-prejudiced by their own thinking?

I have attended dozens of public hearings and testified at many of them. I
have done so at state, local and federal levels in Alaska, Ohio, California,
Wyoming and Idaho and I donšt remember one instance where somebody was
denied a chance to speak because of any affiliation or membership. It seems
to me that my right to free speech was illegally denied. What do you think?

Is this perhaps another example of the subtle ways in which the local
decision making process is flawed?

At various times some of you have asked me why I have run for the position
of mayor or a seat on city council? Herein lies part of the answer - I can
do better than that.

As always, I encourage you to watch or attend city council meetings, to
serve on boards and commissions, to speak at public hearings (youšll
probably be allowed) and to learn more about what is happening around you.
Occasionally it gets interesting.

                            -  Evan Holmes