Decorum does not negate healthy and controversial debate (12)

(12th in a series of posts on City Government)

Dana Grubb is a lifelong resident of the City of Bethlehem who worked 27 years for the City of Bethlehem in the department of community and economic development, as sealer of weights and measures, housing rehabilitation finance specialist, grants administrator, acting director of community and economic development, and deputy director of community development.

Well put, councilwoman Van Wirt. Over the years I am always willing to hear viewpoints of elected officials, whether I agree with them or not. What has no place on Council is when an elected official touts their own views as the right ones at the expense of others’ views, and then is critical of an opposing view in a derogatory comment. That is an issue of decorum.

As I stated in an earlier post, I’ve been attending Council meetings for a very long time, longer than most most Members of Council are alive. I can state unequivocally that I have never witnessed so many criticisms of others, Councilmembers and public attendees, as have seen forthcoming of late.

Over many decades I’ve witnessed prior Councils exhibit patience, respect, integrity, and adherence to Council’s Rules far better than some on the current City Council. And, there was some very healthy and controversial debate on issues despite that decorum.


One thought on “Decorum does not negate healthy and controversial debate (12)

  1. I agree that
    • Being civil does not negate healthy, open debate.
    • Roberts Rules is mostly about procedure & decorum
    • Councilman Callahan was disrespectful and went beyond acceptable decorum when he said ‘If you think,… you don’t have a clue’

    It’s also worth noting that RR can be used to censor content—
    • by not placing some topics on the agenda or removing it to accommodate a particular point of view
    • when a committee is allowed to sit on a bill for an extended period to avoid the topic

    Most importantly, in recent memory, rushing through a vote when new information has been introduced without adequate time for public deliberation.

Leave a Reply