At a time that feels chaotic, and even threatening to some of us, our hope is for a local government that rises in juxtaposition – an example of calm reasonableness and generous accommodation for a diversity of thought, both in dialogue and ultimate policymaking. A beacon of what can be, even as our national governance reels.
What we have instead, as motivated by the Ellis matter, are public calls for the mayor and city manager to resign, but it doesn’t seem likely they will. There have also been rumors of a recall campaign, which hasn’t materialized.
In any event, there will be a citywide election next year, but before we talk about that, let’s backtrack a moment.
Even with all the controversy, none of the facts in the Ellis matter were ever under debate, the core evidence was videotaped. The controversy stemmed from a handful of city officials reading a section of the City Charter a particular way, and most everyone else reading it entirely differently.
Early on, seventeen former city councilors, one having also served as a mayor, and both the city’s principal news outlets, of which we are one, thoroughly reviewed this matter. Every one of us put the evidence alongside the Charter and concluded Ellis hadn’t violated anything – that the matter should never have been pursued and that it should absolutely be dropped.
If Mayor Charles Maughan and City Manager Mark Shepard cannot begin to see those conclusions as right, they may not be able to regain the public’s trust. This may be hard for them to accept, but it’s true. Equally, they need to acknowledge, at least to themselves, that Ellis was right to file a lawsuit to put a stop to all this, and that the court’s ruling in her favor was also right.
If they choose to do this, we believe the public will, in a word, feel the difference. If not, the public will sense that too.
In Maughan’s instance, if he seeks a second term next year, the voter’s sense of him will be expressed directly. For Shepard, that input will come indirectly – he serves at the discretion of the City Council, and they’ll need to be confident they can make his case to the electorate.
We can see how the calculus may play out for voters come election time.
On the one hand, who among us, at some point, hasn’t been blind to what everyone else can see. And when we do see – finally – we learn, and we’re better for it. Our leaders are human beings, fallible like anyone else. Also, Maughan, at heart, loves this community, and has a deep desire to serve. And Shepard regularly meets challenge with resolve in a way that is laudable, and increasingly rare.
But the voters could also have a mind to set some boundaries, to evaluate the motivations of their officials, and their ability to make sound decisions. The electorate could choose to clarify their expectations for decorum in how their city’s business is conducted – and a vote for or against a leader does that.
In any event, absolute purity of motive and freeness from error aren’t options for anyone, learning from mistakes is an alternative.
However, we have also heard calls for Maughan and Shepard to apologize, which we hope they’ll do privately and directly with Ellis. Any public apology from them may appear merely performative. But we do think some highly visible rule changes, substantive moves towards increased transparency, are in order, and we mean fairly immediately.
New rules
Folks in a democracy should know which officials decide what. For someone to have the authority to put a prospective ouster on the agenda should also mean they have the responsibility to put their name on that decision.
We’re not saying the identity of a complainant couldn’t be kept confidential, if appropriate. A whistleblower fearing retaliation may need protection. But the individual processing that complaint for dismissal or a hearing should be identified in all the moving documents and agendas, especially if the complainant’s identity is being kept confidential.
We now know all five Leadership Committee members signed onto a declaration putting the whole Ellis matter in motion – but if that document was published at the time, it was buried enough that we couldn’t find it. Early on, when we asked who directed the City Attorney to draft the charging document and who put the matter on the agenda, none of the Committee would disclose that information.
Likewise, future Leadership Committee meetings should be handled like executive sessions; time and date published, and press welcomed to attend on background only.
At this point, everyone seems to agree the City Charter needs a thorough going over, and we agree – but we would also caution that any rework should be parsed by general topic. For instance, voters should be able to consider things like councilor terms, and say, changes in city taxing authority, separately.
Moving forward
Finally, we will point out what has demonstrably worked in this instance. The public mobilized and made themselves heard – and prior city electeds codified that. We still have some local media, and they spoke-up too. And when all of that failed to stop the Leadership Committee, a single individual persuaded a lawyer to take his time with her case – and our independent judiciary worked.
What remains to be seen is if Maughan and Shepherd will take the points made, or if the public will reinforce those points if need be.
And as no small aside, we would note that as our community’s youth grows into political conscience, they may have only our local government as a vestigial example of what governance once was and could be again. We will take this opportunity to remind our local leaders that the kids may not listen, but they always see.
Do you have a story for The Advocate? Email editor@corvallisadvocate.com