At the risk of sounding like a whiner, allow me to reflect on two controversial council votes I was on the short side of recently…red light cameras and The Daily Times lawsuit on city manager applicants.
I have not heard a single justifiable argument against red light (and speeding) cameras. I think most rational folks would agree that we shouldn’t run red lights. It’s darn dangerous. So if a rule against running red lights is a good rule, how can having a tool that helps you enforce that rule be a bad thing? Compared to the alternative (a cop at every corner), this tool is much more cost effective (it’s free), much more efficient (it never sleeps), and much more absolute (an irrefutable video). And the true benefit is not necessarily catching people in the act; it is deterring them from the activity in the first place. I guarantee more people would slow down through neighborhoods and approach intersections more carefully if they knew cameras were watching.
This brings up the “big brother is watching” argument. Opponents say, “The cameras violate my civil rights.” Give me a break. Do they have the civil right to speed and to run red lights and to put others in danger? “How about my rights to due process?” Well, there is a no-cost appeal process, but they will have to figure out how to dodge that darn incriminating video.
Advertisement
If our traffic laws are not rules we feel we should live by, then let’s call them guidelines and get rid of the traffic cops altogether. If we think the rules are important to protect human safety, then using technology to help us to enforce the rules just makes sense.
Moving on, some two years back, the city did a nationwide search for a city manager. The council disclosed detailed information of the 10 finalists. However, we only disclosed general information on the 80 or so candidates that did not make the cut. The Daily Times sued the city, claiming the public had a right to know everything about these individuals. We fought the suit and lost in District Court, and recently lost an appeal in Appellate Court. We expected to lose in Appellate Court because they didn’t really review the merits of the case; they looked to see if correct procedures were followed. A further appeal to the State Supreme Court would bring the merits of the case back to the table. However, the council voted not to continue the appeal process.
As a councilor who supported continuing the appeal, it raises the question, “Why do I care about protecting the names of the applicants?” A secondary answer is that we implied to them that their names would not be released unless they were finalists, and we are obligated to protect their privacy. But truth be known, I don’t care one whit if the public knows who they are. Frankly, except for The Daily Times and a few conspiracy theorists, the public doesn’t care who they are. The Daily Times editorial cited fairness as the main concern. “Were candidates of diverse race, culture, gender, and political beliefs getting a fair opportunity?” Well here’s a news break… we can’t ask any of those questions on an application. What is fair to these individuals is to respect their privacy. Frankly, if any of these candidates feel they were victims of a biased process, they certainly have the right to bring their case to the public if they so choose.
My primary concern is to preserve the right to a hiring process that gets the strongest applicant pool possible. In all my years on school board and on council, the most important decisions of which I was part were picking a new superintendent once and a city manager twice. As illustrated by Central Consolidated Schools’ struggle to find a superintendant, it can be a time-consuming and expensive process, and you want to do it right the first time. Therefore, it is undeniably in the public’s best interest to have a strong applicant pool, not a group of unemployed or underemployed. So let’s take the common sense test. Would it strain your relationship with your employer if they knew you were applying for other jobs? Would you take that chance if you only had a 1-in-100 chance of getting the job? So what kinds of people are going to apply for the job?
Therefore, I felt that the $35,000 of your (the taxpayer’s) money that we spent was in your best interest. Councilor Fischer was quoted as saying we should just follow the law. Well the law was vague. It was The Daily Times who chose to challenge that interpretation, and unfortunately, one district court judge agreed with them. I would like to have seen if a Supreme Court panel might let common sense prevail.
In losing, we now have
to pay The Daily Times attorney fees exceeding $100,000. Which raises the question, “Were they really representing the general public’s best interest on this issue?” I’m sure there are some out there who are dancing the victory dance with them. But most of you ought to be mortified. They were spending your money, it turns out, to shine a light into a room where nothing exists, to expose the names of individuals that you don’t care about, and to forever handcuff you to a process that seeks out mediocrity for our top positions.
I’m done whining. Time to live by the vote of the council and to move on to the next issue. Thanks for caring.
George Sharpe is a member of the Farmington City Council for District 3.
Font Resize
