Civillity in Civil Government

Robert's Rules of Order provide a framework for debating ideas in a public forum in a way that allows recognition of individuals in a controlled manner. Ideas are brought before a body public through a process called motions, for which a second is obtained. The idea behind it is that if an idea doesn't have at least two people in favor of it, any discussion of that idea would have little chance of bearing productive fruit. Once a second is obtained, a vote on the motion takes place to open the process of formal debate.

Debate can be defined as a formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing sides defend and attack a given proposition. In a civil debate, each side brings their facts forward and each states a point, which can addressed (or rebutted) by the other side. Generally, the better prepared side will win, but in politics, the best prepared side doesn't always win the argument.


A civil debate can deteriorate fairly quickly when people speak out of turn (Robert's provides for a process for the recognition of speakers), when people allege facts without evidence, or speak in tones that cause people to pull back and become defensive and entrenched instead of being more open and responsive. The more open and honest the debate, the better the likely outcome.

It seems like common sense, but just because it sounds like a V-8 moment, people still get entrenched in their own beliefs, this writer included.

At the last council meeting, I heard a lot of questions about hidden motivations of council members, with respect to the City Manager's position. I heard councilman speak about their thoughts and each sounded reasonable, and hardly conspiratorial. I heard another councilman speak highly of the regard other cities have for our city manager. I also heard in the "debate" with the public citizens, a question that caused me to think as well. Cindy Wilson asked an important question about a potential new city manager's salary and benefits package under a proposed split of the two positions. Before the question could be answered. she stomped all over her excellent question by adding another question about whether there would be cuts in other jobs to "pay" for a new position. In my opinion, her question was lost as the debate turned on whether jobs or other expenditures would be trimmed to handle the issue.

The unanswered question caused me to think. I sent an email to Jo Houser, inquiring about how many jobs had the city added since Gary became a dual role holder. Her answer to me was essentially minus one. According to Houser, Gary actually assumed more duties since taking the position 11 years ago. I was under the impression that at least one job had been added in recent years. It was the unidentified woman's question that caused me to think about my beliefs on the matter. That question, and my follow up research caused me to change my thoughts just a little bit. It was the very essence of why we need to debate things in a civil way.

There are many of us who are content to float on the sea of what local government does, believing  little can be done to change the, "machine's" way of doing business. There are others who seek to preserve the status quo, resisting any form of change. There are those still, who seek to change things from what they presently are.

No matter which kind of person you are, it is important to note that any idea for change must meet the so-called smell test. Bring any idea forward, or debate in any idea considered, but do your homework and bring your best to the table. Take a stand for, or against, but try to appreciate the other side's position as you prepare to make your voice heard. Contemplative questions, rather than ones that attack, will illicit the kind of response we will be more proud of and lead to better results for all.

Good arguments can be made for both sides of this issue. You don't have to like the other side's argument. If you are prepared to present your case for why you want things to be a certain way, and  you are able to effectively and civilly counter the opposing view, your argument will have a good shot at prevailing. Active participation by the public will ensure the openness we seek in the Open Meetings Act statutes, but more importantly, it will tell our elected officials that we are engaged and will not stand for conduct that does not reflect our values.

Last council meeting, I sensed a lot of anger toward council members. Let me ask each of you out there to join me in toning down the anger and mistrust, and work with our local government to bring effective conversation to this debate and others, and to agree to take more responsibility for helping our elected officials govern "we, the people."

Michael Rowland