Commentary: “Just One Person”
By Tori Jennings, Ald. First District
Your city alders do many things; one is responding to the concerns and complaints of individuals in their district. For me, one of the most satisfying aspects of serving the First District has been solving problems one person at a time.
One person—facing a problem that makes their life more difficult or less pleasant. Whether that problem is icy sidewalks, snowplowing, noise, parking, street safety, potholes, a neighbor’s unkempt yard, water drainage or any number of issues we routinely receive complaints about, our Code of Ordinances and Zoning Code generally guide what can or cannot be done. Sometimes it’s the tenacity of an alder contacting different city staff members that resolves the problem. The most persistent among us cannot remedy every issue however; for example—snowplows throwing snow and ice onto sidewalks and driveways.
It came as a surprise then, that shortly after a local blogger posted a misleading story about church bells that two City Council candidates clambered onto the Facebook bandwagon to decry “just one person.”
The matters of “just one person” should not be the concern of alders in this case because “there are more pressing issues.” At the same time, these candidates claim they will listen to the voices of the people, implying they are not listened to now. Such contradictory claims are commonplace, especially during election season, but why might this be the case? The illogic points to a fundamental confusion about the role of Common Council and your elected alders.
City Council members not only represent their constituents, they also hash out issues of city policy, planning and zoning, the budget, development proposals, and much more. The dual role of serving individual constituents and decision-making for the whole city can lead to misunderstandings about what alders actually do.
Alders are accused of “not listening to the people” when a development or road project proceeds despite the objections of some residents. Although the anger and resentment following these decisions are real, such accusations disregard federal, state and local level governments’ fundamental architecture.
In other words, we do not practice direct democracy where every eligible citizen votes on every issue that affects them. The Greeks did away with this system because it was too unwieldy. Instead, we have a system of government where voters elect a legislator whom they trust to represents them. But what does “represent” mean in this case?
City Council is routinely tasked with complex and difficult decisions in the face of diverging views and a tangle of tradeoffs and considerations. Sometimes individual constituent’s desires do not align with what is best for the city as a community. Responsible leadership requires making hard decisions that some constituents will not like.
Just as important is a desire to solve the everyday problems that impact “just one person.” The Stevens Point Common Council works hard to balance the needs and desires of not only individuals, but also the good of larger neighborhoods and the entire city.
What about all the people that voiced their opposition to the Stanley Street road diet? How many of them were “listened” to ????
This is a well written article! It may seem that the alders don’t listen, but they really do. Alders must vote on a variety of items that are brought forth, most often from City Department Directors. In order to cast a vote on any given agenda item, Alders must rely on the information and recommendations provided by multiple city staff members. In addition, Alders often spend enormous amounts of time to research and educate themselves about items such as; traffic safety measures and financing of TIF districts. I know that I have searched for additional information about how other similar mid-size cities solve similar issues we have regarding city ordinances, parking, and housing. In order to decide yes or no to any given item, an Alder must strive for balance – utilize citizen’s participation through healthy political debates along with researching and openness to the possibilities of new ideas.
As explained in a childrens book. I would like to use this cited article to correct something Mrs. Jennings stated in the open letter.
Mrs. Jennings stated “The Greeks did away with this system because it was too unwieldy.”
From my understanding of Greek History that is not what happened.
From an online childrens website:
“Direct Democracy:
A form of direct democracy in ancient Greece was practiced in ancient city-state of Athens for about 100 years. It was an experiment. The people really liked it. How it worked is that all adult citizens had to take an active part in government (rule by many) if called on to do so. At this time, citizens were free men. Women, children, and slaves were not citizens, and thus could not participate or vote.
Each year, there was a drawing. Five hundred (500) names were drawn from a pool of all the citizens of ancient Athens. Those 500 citizens had to serve for one year. During that year, they were responsible for making new laws and for changing old laws as they saw fit. But, nothing they did became law until all the citizens of Athens had a chance to vote yes or no. To vote, citizens had to attend the assembly on the day the vote was taken. The date was posted. It was not a secret, but you had to be present to vote. Majority ruled.
This form of government is called a direct democracy. Athens experiment with democracy came an end after Athens lost a war with Sparta.”
The link can be found at
http://www.greece.mrdonn.org
All rights reserved
Lin Donn