The long-expected civil suit against Steve Spear made its way to a court docket recently, only shortly after the Common Council rejected Spear’s appointment to the office from which he had weeks-earlier resigned in disgrace. Whitewater dodged a bullet when it took the only rational step available: ignoring Spear’s application.

Perhaps Spear plans to run again next April, rejection to appointment notwithstanding. The litmus test of civility and decency for private citizens is whether you find Spear’s conduct and public ambitions repulsive. If you do, then you’re civilized. The litmus test for public officials is whether, if he runs again, you’ll take a public position on his candidacy. If you do, then you’re at least minimally worthy of the position that you occupy. If you won’t, then you’ve failed our city for the sake of a small clique that imagines itself in possession of the whole city.

There’s an empty line of reasoning that says public officials were limited in what they could have said about Spear earlier. It’s nonsense, and amounts to nothing more a claim to sophistication or managerial insight in the service of self-preservation and timidity. It’s a conceit to contend that hesitation and reticence are actually advanced managerial skills, or refined politeness. More often, they’re just self-interested conflict-avoidance. There are few public officials who won’t rush to trumpet an achievement. If you’re not press shy for the good times, why be press-shy for the challenging ones? Pretending that your silence and hesitation are, in fact, really examples of sophisticated managerial insight or understanding is unpersuasive.

Eight months is a long time, in litigation, and in life. I have no idea if Spear will truly run again. FREE WHITEWATER will be ready, though, to cover an upcoming political campaign, should there be one.

Here’s my “Mood of It All” segment about Tuesday’s Council meeting. I’ll offer observations on the meeting’s atmosphere, etc.

Don’t Get Angry. This was one of my underlying themes from an earlier post, “Tips for Meetings.” Cool often works better than hot, and this is especially true for those watching on cable. For those in the room, an angry person may seem off-putting; on television, that’s truer still. McLuhan was right – television is a cool medium. Print is a medium of wide emotions, from the aggressive and assertive to the soft and persuasive. Radio accepts a narrower range and television narrower still. (Reagan, in the years between 1976 and 1980, in periodic radio commentary, was one of the few people who could deliver a severe critique in a polite way over the airwaves. He might call someone a liar, and use the word itself, but in so matter-of-fact a way that it wasn’t jarring. It takes a certain grace to speak that way. Even when he grew angry during a televised primary debate in 1980, he still managed a level of control most angry people cannot equal.)

On Marilyn Kienbaum. I am sure that I don’t agree with Ms. Kienbaum on everything, but is there any doubt that her role in this community should be a source of respect and admiration? She has the well-earned support of many, and seeming to quibble with her is graceless and ineffective. She’s hard-working, and states her views plainly. Unmistakable, too, is that she’s sincere, sympathetic, and endearing. Anyone asking her exasperated questions, or repeating the same point more than once, is guaranteed to harm himself, not her. For goodness’ sake, how could one watch her and not be charmed? I have criticized some in town strenuously (and I think deservedly), but only a foolish person would direct frustrated complaints during a meeting toward Ms. Kienbaum. One looks at her and thinks, “There’s a sweet, kind woman.” (I would feel precisely the same regardless of any disapproving opinion that she might have of what I write.) She looks as though she might have come from central casting, and she’s an excellent public spokesperson for the town. She conveys naturally the impression of a friendly, dedicated, well-meaning person. Squabbling with her publicly – rather than disagreeing with her on dispassionate principle — is a silly idea.

On Procedures. When others interpret a procedure one way, and you interpret it another way, a choice presents itself. You could say nothing, if the matter is small, for the sake of harmony. There’s no loss in cooperating with others on minor matters, where the point isn’t vital; on the contrary, there’s gain to be had in that cooperative approach.

Suppose, however, that you think it’s a vital matter. If that’s your position, you’ll have to explain yourself carefully, thoughtfully, and without condescension. After all, no one else agrees with you. It will do you only harm to sigh, repeat the same statements over again, or convey the impression that you think everyone else is a dope. They’re not dopes; they’re probably at least as smart as you are. (I have clear disagreements with several people’s positions, but it’s not because I think that they’re stupid; it’s because I think that they’re wrong, often far wrong.) A person who displays a belief that he’s smarter than others almost never is, in the ways that count in life, anyway.

State your reasoning simply, and by analogy, not merely by a reference to the rules. Others know the rules, too; they’re just willing to make exceptions. If you want them to adopt your position, you’ll have to persuade them with something more than “we need to follow the rules.” Why do you need to do so, in this case? Just give a few, brief arguments in favor of your view: One, two, three…a sentence for each point will suffice. If others are receptive, then you can elaborate. If not, you’ll not likely turn them around (and certainly not by displays of exasperation). Don’t waste time.

On “Okay.” If you’re really exasperated, you may have occasion to a state a contrary position. Do so calmly, without evident annoyance: “That’s not really what the document says.” Never, ever, append the word “okay” to the sentence, especially as a question: “That’s not really what the document says, okay?”

Why not? Because people translate “That’s not really what the document says, okay?” into “That’s not really what the document says, idiot!” Linguists would be able to explain the underlying theory of all this; it’s enough for now that one sees that this is how people comprehend the use of an exasperated question ending in “okay.” Avoid this unfortunate turn of phrase.

If most parts of the meeting were comfortably conventional, the same cannot be said for the discussion about infractions of residential zoning requirements, and the putative violations of landlords and tenants. It’s an understatement to say that it’s a hot-button issue.

The problem is serious for a few residents, whose property has been damaged, and enjoyment impaired, because they have disruptive, thoughtless neighbors. Home ownership is justifiably part of the American dream, and is one of the expressions of our high standard of living. A single family home is both evidence of well-being and a source of enjoyment. After working so hard to own a home, property owners have every reason to feel angry and frustrated when neighbors – tenants or thoughtless owners – damage the peace and property of the neighborhood.

That’s why it’s easy to be sympathetic to a council member who advocates respect for property rights. What’s unfortunate, though, is that a political defense of those rights may seem, to those not committed to the cause, a bit overwrought and, candidly, a bit odd. That’s why I think the use of a slide show of homes that were supposedly in violation of city living requirements was counter-productive. First, some of the alleged violations were likely temporary (parking on grass), or speculative (how many people might be unrelated family members in a house).

Second, many people otherwise supporting more thorough enforcement will find the idea of someone walking around taking pictures of supposed violators odd, and a bit unsettling. To someone committed to enforcement, it all makes sense. To someone on the fence, it’s probably a net wash, or a losing technique. You many gain some supporters, but others just feel that it’s strange for a citizen to photograph neighbors’ alleged violations and show them to the public. (When someone says that he takes these pictures on the way to church on Sunday, it’s hard to know what to say. It sounds like a peculiar fixation on the way to a more important moment. The remark is intended, I suppose, to show that some violations – placement of trash cans — have persisted for days. It’s no doubt sincere, but it sounds unusual, too.)

Third, the expressed worry about having more than two cars in a driveway is ill-advised. I understand that’s a current regulation. Unfortunately, it’s a regulation that’s no longer suitable to our times. Many families have more than two cars, one for each spouse, and a third for recreation or as a teenager’s car. As soon as you start complaining that only two cars should be outside on the driveway, you’re losing potential supporters. Not just affluent ones – middle class ones, too. When you tell them that they should keep their remaining cars garaged, you’re just irritating people who might otherwise support you concerning more significant violations. When you tell someone that his boat should not be in the garage, and that his cars should go in instead, you’ve strayed too far from the key problems. Now you sound like a pushy neighbor.

They say that a picture is worth a thousand words, but that wasn’t true of Tuesday’s slide show. A few words from homeowners who had damage and vandalism inflicted on their homes was far, far more powerful than the slide show of supposed violations. Ordinary people can relate to others like themselves, who worked hard to get a home, and want to have something secure and pleasant for themselves. When it’s wrecked by a thoughtless tenant next door, everyone is sympathetic. That’s a winning presentation, built upon unfortunate loss. No one wants to be in that position, but by speaking calmly about what happened to him, a person can make a difference to persuade others to take action. Slides work nowhere near so well.

Finally, the complaint that the university should have notified the Common Council, as well as landlords, of upcoming university housing policies is well-taken, but again, peripheral to the core message: that more thorough enforcement, and community participation, can protect property, property values, and make the community generally better-looking. (No need to call for more ‘rigid’ enforcement. In fact, ‘rigid’ should not be used when describing ordinary enforcement measures. More ‘thorough,’ comprehensive,’ or ‘attentive,’ etc., convey that message without seeming harsh.)

This is a good cause, sadly susceptible of drift into anti-student rhetoric, or a seeming anti-university bias. Presentations that appear too prying make adherents of better enforcement into versions of Mrs. Kravitz from Bewitched. A smooth-talking spokesperson for the landlords’ lobby could make considerable gains in a debate where advocates of greater enforcement relied on some of the techniques used last night. That’s too bad, because some homeowners have been injured, and wronged. To make the homeowners’ case, however, requires a more persuasive tactic. Ordinary homeowners expressing their concerns are the best spokespeople for this cause, and they were the most compelling part of last night’s discussion.

Tuesday’s Common Council meeting was a good representation of a typical city meeting, with several matters before the Council, but nothing out of the ordinary. Here’s the first part of a recap, with (of course) commentary.

From the City Manager’s report. The most important part of the report, and maybe the most important part of the meeting, came early in the evening, in a reference to a university and city liaison committee. City Manager Brunner announced the names of several people to the committee, and the university will select its own representatives.

If any town has ever needed a better relationship with its university, it’s our town. I often write that we’re a town of fourteen thousand, and a part of that number includes students in town. Take that number away, and we’d be noticeably smaller, and in economic distress. The university may be our most distinguishing characteristic as a town. Still, as I’ll highlight later, in a subsequent post on the August 21st meeting, our town has a love-hate relationship with its university, and it’s a shame.

Quickly, there are two ways to approach a better relationship: (1) with small, concrete, structural actions to change community attitudes, or (2) with a preliminary change in community attitudes to produce small, concrete, structural actions. (This choice is present in many efforts to produce a better relationship, of whatever kind.) The best effort here probably involves small, concrete actions, as the other approach is just too challenging as a place to begin. If our town makes progress here — and we need progress here — we will have made good use of the opportunity of hosting a college campus. It’s distinctive to us, and only several other towns of our size, and we should seize the possibilities our campus offers.

Recreational Burning. The council considered those times of day when recreational fires may be allowed within the city. Small outdoor fire places, more than bonfires, are common to many homeowners. I don’t have one, but I am not opposed to them, and it’s enjoyable to many people to have a small fire in the evening, several times a season. I would favor fewer restrictions on a homeowner’s use of his or her property, and so this would be a sensible idea in my eyes. It was clear from the discussion that neither the police nor most council members wanted the police involved in prior approval of this recreational burning.

For the most part, that’s just a waste of police time and effort, so the idea of only limited police involvement, in response to direct complaints, is a good idea. It’s really a good idea, though, for reasons other than use of police time: use of complaints to the police about small matters (rather than true dangers or emergencies) causes more animosity between neighbors than it resolves. I’ll write more about this in a bit. For now, it’s enough that the inclination to police action is not present. (The only remaining question is whether police action in response to complaints might prove selective.)

Liquor Store at the Westsider. It’s an empty space now, but the area of the Westsider now vacant could become a liquor store. Council approved the surrender (from a current holder) and re-issuance of a liquor license to Frawley Oil for sale of liquor at the area formerly occupied by a Wendy’s restaurant. A drive-though window for liquor met with some skepticism, however. I think part of the reason is that it seems a new idea, and almost unexpected, somehow. I see no harm that would come to it, though, any more than someone who drives to a liquor store, and makes a purchase that way. I would support the idea, in full, as a good business strategy that will produce no measurable, incremental risk over current methods of alcohol purchase.