The Spokane Record

Often the Spokane City Council is beset with testimony from certain citizens who seem to have something to say about most issues which the council is addressing. These citizens do not seem to have a compass or a measuring rod with respect to the issues they take on or what they say about the issues. That is to say, their criticisms are not orderly, not relevant to anything, not tied to any long term point of view or goals. In essence most of their testimony is illegitimate. They have nothing to add to the debate, and in fact they usually hinder the debate. (They seem to have an easy time of baiting Joe Shogan, the Council President, or one or two of the council members.)

Debate is hindered when ad hominem attacks are made. An ad hominem attack or response in argument “consists of replying to an argument or a claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.” Instead of responding to a position with a substantive statement, one relevant to the debate, the speaker simply claims that the other, “his antagonist” is a “bad person” of one kind or Another.

All too often, the persons who constantly give testimony fall into ad hominem attacks of the council or of “this or that” member of the council. The notion one gets is that the speaker has a need to see the council or a council member or two as a “bad persons.”

One wonders if the “bad person” label does not satisfy some inner need or desire in the psyche of the “constant speaker.” Perhaps a need to see the council as strong and at the same time mean and uncaring.

7:00 PM — It is good to see that Council President Joe Shogan is opening up the city council meetings a bit.  People should be less threatened when they speak to the council.

8:00 PM –  But, watching the council meeting, Mr. Shogan now keeps telling everyone as they come up to speak that they only have three minutes.  My compliments were premature.

9:03  Council Member Corker is raising good questions.  The issue is financial.  The question is whether we are going finance certain things over other things.  But, the real issue is whether we advance the core responsibilities of government or whether we go off in other directions.  The fact is Corker is correct, it is a question of economics and we need to understand this.  But, again, the discussion should not even be taking place because the city is not supposed to be doing what the Envision Spokane people think it should do.  The city does not have the power or the right to do what the Envision people want the government to do.

Live blogging the city council meetings.  An interesting concept.  I wonder what it would be like if a city council member live blogged as the council meeting took place.  Interesting.

 8:25  The council and the witnesses are discussing whether there will be costs to the Envision Spokane Communty Bill of Rights Initiative if passed.  There will be costs but the debate seems to say there may not be.   The real issue is whether the legislation proposed is appropriate.  It is not in my opinion.

The argument is going to the substance of the Initiative.  That is not the issue.

In a sense the discussion is good because it does serve to bring out an understanding of the Initiative.

8:34  Now Shogan has gotten upset and has said that a witness impugned his integrity.  He is upset and has now chastized the person who upset him and has called his police to come down and escort the man out of the chambers of the council.  The police will ignore him, I am sure.  The police do not want to waste their time filling out an unnecessary police report.  Shogan really has to figure out how things work.  How strange his conduct is.

8:46 — another witness speaks.  His comments are clearly irrelevant.  He is enjoying another moment on the television.  He speaks on every issue he can speak on before the council.  He has no real purpose but to put himself on television.  Yet, every now and then he comes up with a thought which causes one to think, that is if he is listening. 

8:49 another witness speaks about the goodness of the Community Bill of Rights.  The issues she speaks of are worthy of consideration but not in the context of an illegal initiative.  So, I wonder how do people cause change to come about.  The lady wants revolutionary change.  It is not going to happen in the way she would like it to happen.  Maybe something will come of all this.

9:09 a young man by the name of Bass? speaks.  A smart young man.  He will go far. He raised good question.

9:10 now a man who has problems speaks but indeed he has something to say too but it takes compassion and understanding to see it.  As he talks you begin to see what he is saying, what his concern is.  It seems all jumbled but he has something to say and he will not commit himself to taking a side.  Interesting. 

9:13 maybe I should have gone down to speak in oppostion to the resolutions.  It will still be a bad idea for the council to pass the resolutions.  It looks like it is going to, though.

9:14  Brenda Corbett speaks — it is good to see her stepping out and making her positions known.  She has much to say and it is good to see her becoming involved in public discussion.

The speakers are coming to an end.

9:15 Fayer the speaker says he likes Envision Spokane — he said it sounded great but who is going to pay for it.  He comes to the podium against the Initiative.  He is trying to be clever.  The question seems to be whether the  Initiative will cost or not cost money.  (Of course it is going to cost money.)  What he is saying is true, we do not have enough money coming in.

9:20 Kathy Moitke speaks — she says the rights will not cost anything and that each of the rights comes from the goals of the Comprehensive Plan (I doubt it).

This is getting tedious — I quit.

Three Minute Joe Shogan, our Spokane City Council president, is a “military” man.  A man in control.  He has many rules.  Most are made up on the spot, but one is made up and announced at every meeting —  at the time there is to be public comment on issues being considered by the council.

 No one, except for Three Minute Joe’s friends, will be allowed to speak beyond the time to cook a soft boiled egg at sea-level  — three minutes when your stove is set nearly on high.  He tells you this (but he does not tell you of the exception) and scares the bejeepers out of you.  He makes it real clear, real clear, that if you speak you will have three minutes, three minutes only, and that you had better not offend him.  And, he makes it very very clear if you violate  his rule, his three minutes of speech and petition, you will be arrested and escorted out.  A pretty scary business!  Three Minute Joe is a fun guy!

Old Three Minute thinks since he is ”president” of the City Council he has authority to set this Soft Boiled Egg Rule for each public comment sesssion.  And, even more, that he has a right to call a police force in the meetings ostensibly under his control.  In Spokane,  the city code provides that people shall have a right to speak on all issues before the council at every meeting of the council.  State law does not require this. Spokane City Code Section 02.01.030 (Right to Speak) says this:

All meetings of the city council are open to the public except an executive session. Members of the public shall have the right to speak to an item on the city council’s legislative, special consideration or hearing agendas that are not adjudicatory hearings. Members of the public may attend but do not have the right to speak when the city council is meeting in briefing, study or other workshop sessions or acting in an adjudicative capacity. It shall be the duty of the presiding officer to determine and allot whatever time is necessary due to the number of public participants and extent of the proposed participation.

Joe, if he has read this section, must think that it gives him the right to set a three minute rule for each event where public comment is allowed.  Joe, a lawyer, one of an extraordinary number of lawyers pumped into our metropolitan community of 420,000 souls by Gonzaga Law School, must think this section gives him the right to come up with the Soft Boiled Egg Rule for each puplic comment event.  It does not.  It says “It shall be the duty of the presiding officer to determine and allot whatever time is necessary due to the number of public participants and extent of the proposed participation.” 

This means that the time allotments are to be whatever time is necessary due to the number of public participants and extent of participation.  Old Joe, not being one much interested in information or public participation limits public commenters to three minutes no matter what the issue, the complication of the issue, the people speaking whether they represent themselves or a host of people, the extent to which the speaker is or is not repetitive and so on — or the law is not troubled — three minutes is what you get and if you take more you will be escorted from the Council Chambers.  

Joe is a lover of power.  He is a veritable Napoleon or El Duce. 

And, if you violate the rule.  And especially if you confront him cordially or otherwise, if he does not much care for you he will tell you “you had better stop and sit down or you will be arrested.”

He becomes a bit apoplectic if you tell him when you have finished your comments and have gone over the three minutes and he has told you  the police are coming — that you tell him you will patiently wait for the gendarms to come down so you can be arrested.

Three Minute Joe, what a tribute to the community!