Last Monday, June 11th, Whitewater’s Common Council and Planning Commission met jointly, to receive a sixty-two-page .pdf presentation from Graef Consulting as part of a zoning rewrite project. The meeting lasted about three hours, during which members of Council and the Planning Commission heard residents’ views on the presentation.

The easiest description would be to say the consultants presented, some residents voiced concerns, and thereafter Council gave direction for modifications to the zoning rewrite project. That’s true, and it’s how a meeting like this should work: review leads to adjustment.

Still, to describe the meeting so simply would miss important aspects of the evening.

I’ve embedded the full video below. It’s lengthy, but in it one will find more than an evening’s unfolding agenda – there are telling references to Whitewater’s past, and to signs of a better future. A few general remarks appear below.

Interest. Dozens of residents attended, and many spoke. Those who say Whitewater’s residents are apathetic are wrong. When issues of interest arise, residents attend in solid numbers.

If anything, much of the last eight years (and before) has had the consequence of discouraging ordinary residents’ participation in favor of a small, stodgy clique that prefers only its own counsel. It’s only natural that, on political occasion after occasion, residents would avoid those sorts of meetings.

Thereafter, of course, the same people who bemoan their discouraging politics will insist that lack of participation is proof of popular support. (A very smart person reminded me of this recently: Whitewater’s town squires mistake the discouragement their closed policies have created with approval: “See, no one’s objected!”)

When people have an issue that matters, they’ll turn out.

As the city becomes more open, they’ll turn out more often for political meetings.

Substance & Procedure. I’ve written more than once that I’d prefer fewer municipal restrictions, but sometimes that view doesn’t prevail. That’s to be expected.

Still, there are really two concerns in every debate: particular substantive views on a topic (left, right, center, etc.), and views about the procedures through which the topic should be considered. Some of those procedures are so important that they represent a substance all their own.

As important as any particular outcome is the fairness of the procedures by which the outcome is achieved.

About key procedures one should be tenacious. There’s no reason to compromise on fundamental, procedural fairness. Of course, there are people in the city who’d rather have a small group in a backroom decide everything. Those few people deserve no deference, and should be met with tenacious opposition whenever necessary.

They will never again have the Whitewater they selfishly and presumptuously controlled for so very long. There’s still work ahead – openness requires a continuing diligence.

An open meeting like that of Monday, June 11th is good for the city. There will be others like it.

Improved Enforcement. During the meeting, Latisha Birkeland, Neighborhood Services Director, talked about the importance of uniform enforcement (apart from zoning). She briefly described some of the changes that she’s brought to her department since arriving here.

That’s noteworthy for three reasons. First, residents on every side of this issue have complained for years about equitable enforcement, but nothing useful happened until Birkeland became Neighborhood Services Director. These are the years of Whitewater’s administrative past: ignoring complaints from residents of every ideology and viewpoint. Dozens of meetings, each to no lasting effect, despite countless promises from Whitewater’s city manager.

Sadly, it took a new department head – someone from outside – to bring some measure of normalcy to enforcement inside the city. I’m hopeful that we’re doing better; we should have done better years ago, long before Birkeland arrived.

Relatively Calm. We’ve had contentious meetings over the years, but this one was calm and reasoned.

Why?

I think it’s because an informational meeting, long before final decision-making, reduces tension. A well-publicized meeting, where the only definite outcome is discussion, is less intense than one where a binding decision will be made.

The more notice there is, the less rushed the process, the calmer the meetings. Removing a sense of urgency removes tension.

Consultants. Whitewater has had more than her share of consultants, but Larry Witzling and Carolyn Esswein of Graef are probably the steadiest and most phlegmatic I’ve yet to see in the city. There’s a value in that, independent of any particular recommendation. We’ve had far too many edgy and prickly consultants, and it’s reassuring that we’ve found even-tempered ones. They held their cool, even after three hours.

Whitewater deserves that, and got that, on Monday the 11th.

The Joint Council and Planning Commission meeting was, I’d say, a good one. There will be potholes along this road, but nothing we can’t avoid, if only we’d try.

Common Council Meeting 06/07/2012 from Whitewater Community TV on Vimeo.