Deprecated: mb_convert_encoding(): Handling HTML entities via mbstring is deprecated; use htmlspecialchars, htmlentities, or mb_encode_numericentity/mb_decode_numericentity instead in /var/www/html/wp-content/plugins/super-cool-ad-inserter/inc/scaip-shortcode-inserter.php on line 37
You know when you’ve got an image problem? When you’re making City Councilor Jim Motznik look like the adult.
And that’s where “progressives” on council find themselves today.
As you’ve probably heard, city council President Doug Shields had a meltdown during a confrontation today with Barbara Trant, the city’s personnel director. Shields and others on council have been seeking a review of the city payroll, an effort to ferret out any gender or racial disparities in compensation. But it’s taken months to get the study going, and Shields boiled over today. He accused Mayor Luke Ravenstahl’s administration of trying to undermine the effort — and accused Trant of proffering a “pack of lies.” Finally, Trant had enough, and made her way toward the exit. Shields went so far as to demand the on-duty police officer — who is generally on hand to control unruly members of the audience — to detain Trant.
The officer let Trant go, rather than, say, Tasing her. But the irony here — council president seeks gender-disparity study, bullies woman in process — is so obvious that even Motznik saw it.
“[D]uring a conversation relating to a Gender and Race Wage Disparity Study,” wrote Motznik in a letter calling for Shields’ resignation, “your attack on one of our city’s female department directors was the most disgraceful scene I have ever witnessed in these chambers.”
“Women and citizens all around this city are outraged” by the incident, Motznik added.
OK, so it’s a little presumptuous for Motznik to speak for women. And yeah, Motznik has challenged Shields for the council presidency in the past, and can be counted on to use any ammunition he can find against his nemisis.
But still.
As someone with scarcely more hair than Motznik, I can’t speak for women, either. So it’s not for me to decide whether Shields’ outburst dents his long, and admirable, legacy of advocating for gender equity. (And that legacy is worth noting: Shields has been a staunch supporter of equality for women, the glbt community, and everyone else you can think of.) But today’s circus has shifted the question from whether the city treats women fairly to whether Shields treated Trant fairly. And that can’t possibly help anyone, least of all the women whose paychecks are at stake.
Nor is Shields the only offender. The debate over this study has been so acrimonious partly because of another councilor who touts his support of women’s causes: Pat Dowd. Dowd objected to the means of funding this study: The money was attached to a spending bill providing uniforms to firefighters, while Dowd believes funding should come from council’s own budget.
In principle, I agree. But as others have noted, the irksome thing about Dowd is that when he takes a stand on principle, the end result is that standing on principle is all council ends up doing. We saw this in the great Lamar billboard dispute, in which Shields and Dowd ended up feuding, even though they both opposed an electronic billboard on Grant Street. Shields and his allies wanted to use city funds to pay for an attorney they’d hired to challenge the sign. Dowd objected — on principle, of course — saying council should have sought authorization to pay the attorney before hiring him. After all, Dowd said, council’s complaint was that the sign hadn’t been propertly authorized either.
I appreciate Dowd’s willingness to see the mote in council’s eye. I’d appreciate it even more, though, if that speck didn’t seem to distract him from the beam being used to bash the city over the head. Dowd sometimes acts as though “following proper procedures” is the only principle at stake. It’s not.
Council had two choices today: Perpetuating a less-than-perfect process for allocating money, or perpetuating a payroll that may discriminate against employees. Dowd’s most immediate concern was the former, and I think that’s the wrong set of priorities.
Actually, council had three choices, and today it followed the third — doing nothing. And part of the reason is that whatever their individual merits, Shields and Dowd seem to bring out the worst in each other. Dowd insists on “proper procedure” so stridently that almost nothing gets done. Shields, meanwhile, has gotten so frustrated that he simply lost his sense of propriety.
The problem is, I don’t know where we go from here. Maybe Shields should step down, for his own well-being if no one else’s. Put Ricky Burgess up there, maybe — he’s a reverend and could bring some badly-needed gravitas to the position. Plus, having him ascend to the mayor’s office should Ravenstahl leave the post might be our best chance at having a black mayor. Somehow, though, I don’t get the feeling we’re going anywhere any time soon. Not as long as the cop is standing by the door.
This article appears in Aug 7-13, 2008.
Wow. Very good post, bordering on great. I say that because (IMO) you were pretty fair to all the participants.
I have a (slight) personal dislike for Doug Shields because I have never met him, I have only seen him being overly verbose on Council TV. I know me saying that is a bit of kettle calling pot, and I should say that anyone I have met who has met Doug Shields personally have, to a person, described him as a very nice person in all respects. On the other hand, while I am also sure that Jim Motznik can be a pleasant person, his continued presence on City Council is probably a testament to the power of party connections. And then there is Pat Dowd.
I was talking to ”Fester” of the Newshoggers about a month or so ago at a “Drinking Liberally” thing. He made a point of noting that none of our City Council persons have a policy or economics background. Now, if we did have some Council persons with some economics or policy degrees, I’m not saying it would be a panacea, or even that the discussion would be less acrimonious. But I think it might be a different discussion/argument. Maybe Councilpersons would argue by citing studies and policies enacted by other cities. Maybe we wouldn’t have a Tonya Payne saying “I’m so perplexed right now”.
Of course, we can’t even get an alternative to Ravenstahl, and by the way I am *not* putting my name in any ring for anything. No money where my mouth is, no getting off the pot, yada yada. Sorry, train of thought derailed.
The City Paper story “Motion Sickness” quoted Morton Coleman saying “I think Doug wants to be the smartest guy at the table and then all of a sudden, [Dowd] comes walking in, and then next thing you know you’ve got two smart, competitive guys locked in a battle of intellectuals.” But again, smart though they may be, they are not guys who learned about public policy, so they end up arguing about minutia. And nothing gets done.
I liked your suggestion about Ricky Burgess. Maybe he could use the Council Presidency as an excuse to run for Mayor. Problem is, if Burgess’ name was put up for Council Presidency, Doug Shields might not vote for him out of hurt feelings, and Pat Dowd might not vote for him because … the sun reflected wrong on the table.
1. For once, Dowd had significant support for his procedural hangups. It’s a little inaccurate to say his move alone submarined Shields’ move this time because it was Burgess I believe that really surprised Shields with his “friendly rejection” of the amendment, in favor of using the Council’s own rollover minutes.
2. Everyone seems to be guaranteeing that this thing will get done on Monday, so if the bottom line is all that matters, no harm no foul. That is, unless you’re outraged on behalf of all the women of the city.
3. I just spoke with Dowd, who says he is not joining in Motznik’s call for Shields to step down, because replacing the president would be too “tumultuous” at this point.
4. This is no time to be voluntarily relinquishing the council presidency, is it? Even still, if another event like this were to occur and change become inevitable, I’d say your Burgess would be the odds-on favorite, followed very closely by indeed by (wait for it … wait for it) Bill Peduto. Either of which would be okay.
“Everyone seems to be guaranteeing that this thing will get done on Monday, so if the bottom line is all that matters, no harm no foul.”
>>>> Your modifier is important there — “if the bottom line is all that matters.” I don’t think it is. What I think we’ve seen from the “loyal opposition” on council this year is that even when they are right on the principle immediately at hand, they often get the politics all wrong. And that has implications for deeper, more lasting change.
I agree this will likely work itself out on Monday, but doesn’t that make Shields’ behavior yesterday all the more problematic? If a few deep breaths are all that’s necessary, as Heather Arnet hoped in today’s P-G, shouldn’t Shields have been able to take them while he was still at the table? Is it too much to hope for that much, at least, from a standard-bearer?
I don’t think Motznik’s letter will amount to anything, but don’t be surprised if there is a real shift in council’s dynamic going forward, in part because of what happened yesterday. And it may not go in a direction that you, or Shields, will like. Time will tell, of course. But in any case, I do think it would be good for Shields, and his friends on council, to decide whether his skills — however considerable — are the best match for this job.
Not everyone is cut out for a position in leadership … as my staff will be more than happy to tell you. And I think we agree that the loyal opposition doesn’t have a five-vote lock on anything. Some consensus-building, then, is in order. And the question is what Shields’ outburst says about the prospects for that happening. You’re right that Dowd wasn’t standing alone yesterday (though I still think the friction between he and Shields is the main heat source here). But again, doesn’t that suggest Shields should have been even more cautious before mounting his horse and charging into battle?
The larger point is this: The problem is that you and I are discussing Shields rather than, say, administrative stonewalling. Even if this delay only amounts to a couple days, it has resulted in more bad press than months’ worth of footdragging on the other end of the hall. And as much as I admire the man, Shields has himself to blame for that.
No contest to any of that, Chris. I think I was reading more into “standing on principle is all council ends up doing” and “today [council] followed the third — doing nothing” than I should have.
I’m going to change my What If? prediction and say Peduto would wind up with the gavel in the event of tumult. Ed, Douglas thinks the absolute world of Ricky, and Patrick respects the hell out of him too … but come to think of it, I don’t think ANY of the progressivists are eager to sit quietly through prayers before each and every session of council. And I don’t think anyone else besides Bill would have the votes.