Video: Watch McIntyre cut off discussion [update]

By John McDaid | Thursday, 14 May 2009

On Monday night, the Portsmouth Town Council made an appointment to the school committee without public comment or Council discussion, a process that the Newport Daily News called "alarming." Watch for yourself. From the time Tailgunner Gleason makes her motion (and I stand by my original reporting; she did not even allow McIntyre to finish the agenda item) to the vote, the total elapsed time is 15 seconds.


Did you see that? McIntyre first says "Any discussion...on the motion." At that point, 56 seconds in, former Councilor Len Katzman can be seen heading toward the podium. Suddenly, McIntyre says what sounds like "Thoughts? [oops?] Pass the motion. All in favor of the motion." The vote happens in 4 seconds.

Does this sound like "a mistake?" McIntyre clearly calls for discussion, and then almost immediately cuts it off.

The rest of the clip — another nine minutes — is included lest anyone accuse me of picking and choosing. But watch until the end for the kicker.


McIntyre has the last word, and again, I stand by my report of his quote, which is also the way the Sakonnet Times reported it. Note the conditional: "If I made a mistake here tonight, I apologize."

I repeat: Bullshit.

Update: After listening to this thing dozens of times, I still can't tell what McIntyre says, whether it's "woops" or "let's." Either way, he is clearly heard calling for the motion to be passed without any public discussion.

There's just no good way to spin this. The President of the Portsmouth Town Council said in a public meeting that e-mails and letters make public discussion of the appointment of an elected official unnecessary. "I think I can look out into the audience can see the same people that sent me the e-mails."

I think Jefferson said that once.

Tags: 
Localblogging, 02871, Town Council, School Committee, Perrotti

Comments

fran

Fri, 05/15/2009 - 5:38am

I have a question: if it's possible and even acceptable to create public policy via e-mail, why bother having public meetings at all? Why don't we simply eliminate the pseudo-representative government that is the town council and we can all vote on local issues from the comfort of our homes over a secure socket layer? One person, one vote and that's it. If it works at the local level, we could extend it to state government, and say bye-bye to assorted special interests.

John McDaid

Fri, 05/15/2009 - 6:36am

Hi, fran...
I think we should take this question seriously, and there are two external factors that make it an interesting proposition. If we take Peter McIntyre at his word, we no longer need the Town Council. But I don't think we will escape special interests.

First, the technological environment, which now makes it possible for near-ubiquitous Internet access. If we had a digital plebiscite on every issue, with people able to vote by browser, BlackBerry, iPhone, and VRU ("Press Two to approve a Wastewater Management District..."), there wouldn't be a need for these pesky meetings where people could stand up and say things that might sway, oh, I don't know, first-term Council members who, just the week before, had voted not to take money from the schools.

Second, maybe Tailgunner Gleason is right about political parties. What we really need are bands of self-organizing special interests, a digital phenomenon that marketing maven Seth Godin refers to as "tribes." (see his interview in Wired) Ideologically consistent groups bent on advancing a specific agenda could totally replace the set of democratic principles we think of as sacrosanct.

Who needs to waste time at meetings listening to what everyone knows they are going to hear. "Everybody knows how the public comment would have went," McIntyre is quoted as saying in the Sakonnet Times.

Cheers.
-j

fran

Sat, 05/16/2009 - 6:27am

Hi John,

I agree that special interest was the wrong term to apply here (those darn semantics again). The better phrase would be "special influence". If each the voters of Portsmouth had an equal right to make decisions about their town, it would be more difficult for any individual or group to advance an agenda based on their relationship with a member of members of the council. They'd need to convince the community that their way was best.

As you say, the technology exists to make this happen. We could have lively debates via electronic forums, and no one need worry about getting home at a decent hour. A voting deadline can be set for a particular issue, and those who make up their minds early in the process could simply record their vote and be done with it. Those who are less sure could participate in the forums, and make a decision after hearing (or reading) all opinions.

Of course, a truly democratic process requires a level of commitment that most folks aren't used to. And it's unikely that those in power would happily agree to pass that power on to the community at large. Still, it's an interesting notion to contemplate.

John McDaid

Sat, 05/16/2009 - 8:44am

Hi, fran...
While I'm about as wild-eyed a geek as you are likely to find, I remain deeply suspicious of direct electronic democracy, for precisely the reasons you mention. We live in a Republic, and our founders made that choice thoughtfully to ensure that a well-informed group would exist to consider issues based on facts and reason. Direct participatory democracy gave us the Tent Meeting and 700 people in Tiverton allocating an additional $1 to the schools.

That said, using social media — blogs like this, wikis where people can collaboratively comment on proposed Council matter, forums where people could discuss upcoming issues, chat rooms for discussion, Twitter for keeping people instantly informed — undoubtedly have a role to play. Newspapers and TV are good at telling us what happened in the past tense. Digital media, for the first time, bring that focus to the present and future.

I have talked to several folks on the Council about making better use of their Web site to communicate with and engage the public. I don't think we're anywhere near the point of replacing our current political system with Government 2.0, but I strongly believe that a community which shares in the process of its ongoing governance is going to have more buy-in and make better decisions.

Take a concrete example: Why is the Woodard & Curran wastewater report languishing in a hardcover binder in the Clerk's office? Why is it not online where we can all read it and have a discussion? (And why is the Town Web site totally down and returning an authentication error right now?)

Cheers.
-j

Maddie_C

Sat, 05/16/2009 - 3:11pm

Lot's of folks think you wave a wand and *poof* you have internet services. I bet the reason you're getting an authentication error is the same reason the town website in general is slow and underused. its because there's no money to upgrade. Look at the town budget every year and theres just no money for town technology, which requires hardware and technology services which require people.

I can guess how many hours it would take to bring the features you want, and the town has no money set aside for it. Maybe we could find tech-savy volunteers, but do we really want our rights to guaranteed access to public information depending on a few folks to donate their time? What happens when the system goes down? you can't call the volunteers then?

Sorry to be a downer, but this is typical. People want services but they aren't willing to pay for it.

fran

Sun, 05/17/2009 - 8:08am

It's true Maddie, there's no money in the budget for technology upgrades, and I wouldn't expect any very soon either. But I really don't believe that money is the major obstacle to government 2.0. Nor is the reliability of the technology. I think the thorniest problem is that it would represent a major shift in the way we think about governance. Right now, people tend to exercise their right to be uninvolved. Every couple of years they might look at the candidates and the issues on which they choose to run. They elect the people that they think best represent their viewpoint. They might communicate with a council member if an issue really hits home, but usually not. Government 2.0 would require a level of involvement most folks are unwilling to make. It's kind of odd though, that they'lll religiously watch american idol and exercise their right to vote for their favorite performer, but won't take control of things that directly affect their lives.

John McDaid

Sun, 05/17/2009 - 8:56am

Hi, fran...
Alas, this is not odd at all. Neil Postman explained this 20 years ago in Amusing Ourselves to Death.

Cheers.
-j