It is with great reluctance that I write this. I’ve been, hands down, the most interested in local journalism of any member of the City Council in decades. And I try to be supportive of the Waterland Blog. But this article was really not great journalism. It will create wrong impressions with the vast majority of people who do not watch our meetings and do not understand the backstory. My choice always seems to be, avoid controversy and get punked, or ‘take the bait’ and respond. I’m responding not only because reputation matters, and not only because we deserve better journalism, but mainly because doing the ‘polite’ thing and turning the other cheek, far from making government more ‘civil’, has only made things worse over the fifteen years I’ve been watching our City Council.
I tried contacting WB Editor Scott Schaefer twice before publishing this and received no return call.
Now, about that article
This is copy from that article:
Here is the relevant video:
Here are my issues with what you published:
- The reporter says that there was a bit of a quarrel over something I wrote, but does not provide the quote. Just because the Mayor says I said something, does not mean I said it.
- The reporter also says that I insisted that the City Manager said we were purchasing a boat. Just because the City Manager says I said something, does not mean I said it.
- Then there’s an editor’s note: “We could not confirm Harris’ claims of any mention… If you find it, please email Scott.” There’s this thing called Twitter… er… ‘X’. Or… just a thought… the reporter could have dialed (206) 878-0578 before going to print.
- The reporter quotes the Mayor’s allegation that there was “an incident from two years ago when Harris told people that the city manager had purchased a ferry.” I feel a stutter coming on. Just because the Mayor says I said something, does not mean I said it.
The mayor knew all that before he started speaking–because he had exactly the same baseless allegations on social media before the meeting. It was, in fact, the mayor who decided to re-open the ‘fracas’ at the meeting, which he can do because he has a superpower.
About the office of mayor
Des Moines, Burien and Normandy Park are organised as Council Manager Government. In this system the mayor is one of seven equals. However, for the sake of practicality, the mayor does have a number of ‘superpowers’; most visibly the fact that the mayor runs the meeting.
The mayor can speak whenever they want, whether there is a place for it on the agenda or not. They can tell any council member to shut up whenever they want. Only they can unilaterally place an item on an agenda. As the saying goes, “With great power and great responsibility”.
The council selects the mayor by majority vote. So if that majority wishes to marginalise and bully a minority, the mayor they chose has all the tools they need to do so. To counteract that potential for abuse, the social norm for mayors has always been to go out of their way to avoid even the appearance of taking advantage of any of those abilities. In most cities with CMG, the mayor strives to be the person who speaks least during a meeting.
There is no formal place in our meeting agenda for a mayor to make opening remarks or to comment on the city manager’s report. But the mayor has made this a regular feature. (nb: since the mayor in CMG is not the executive, it is an open question as to whether a mayor can ‘direct’ a City Attorney to take action on a legal matter. Hint, hint.)
Rather than simply reporting the events, ideally, a local journalist would understand the social norms, and point out that the current council, particularly the mayor, is behaving in ways that are truly novel. This matters because most people are not experts. They just assume that whatever occurs in local government is normal. That is what makes it so vulnerable to abuse. If if the mayor does something wrong and journalists report on it as just a ‘fracas’ without noting those errors ? Overreach becomes the new normal. The journalist has given their tacit permission.
So again: at a meeting, the mayor has a superpower. He runs the meeting and can direct the conversation almost any way he sees fit. A local reporter should know this and thus hold the mayor to the highest standard of decorum and accuracy. When a mayor throws around allegations of ‘misinformation’ (a serious charge, in my opinion), they should at least be asked to back up their statements.
And next time? If you make me your headline, please do me the courtesy of asking me for a comment before you print (As you routinely seem to do with other stories.)
Sincerely,
—JC
