Every so often I find myself embroiled in the midst of a semi-public e-mail debate with a local elected official.
This happens for two reasons. One, I’m naturally opinionated and paid to infuse those opinions into the newspaper. And two, elected officials almost always stand firmly behind action they have taken or votes they have cast. When I stand behind what I write and an official stands behind his policy, conflict is natural.
So far as I can remember, I don’t initiate the contact. Typically what happens is a city councilman objects to an editorial and fires off an e-mail to anyone and everyone. In the case we’re exploring today, it was a debate carried out with Ward 4 Clinton City Councilman Rodger Holm at the end of August. It also involved the city attorney and administrator, police chief, mayor, a few councilmen and a local radio station, but that was not my choice.
Anyhow, the debate ended when I did not respond to an Aug. 27 e-mail, specifically this passage:
“I would like to talk to you to find out why you dislike the noise ordinance. Basically the city attorney brought an outdated ordinance up to speed to current time. It is not the boombox that causes trouble, it is the use of it. I think that you would have to agree that when the use of boomboxes or vehicles (etc.) negatively affects other people’s pursuit of happiness and liberty, then it is a nuisance.”
Rodger then asked me to outline my reasons for disliking the ordinance, although the editorial board did a fine job of that a few weeks earlier (while Mr. Holm was out of town, to be fair). He also said he was not defending the ordinance but merely seeking my opinion. So here it is.
Continue reading "Deconstructing a faulty ordinance"
No comments:
Post a Comment