Let’s take another look….this time, a REAL one
There have been many reactions to the recent Talbot County Council meeting (June 23) which indicate not only some ludicrous POV, dismissive opinions, but also that it seems several people have not actually watched the WHOLE video in question. There have been accusations in both the Spy and Star Democrat that excerpts were posted or the video mismanaged by, among others, the NAACP and ACLU. I maintain this is actually far from the truth. But being surprised by recent comments (of Montgomery in response to Freedlander, The Spy, July 7) , I watched the entire 3+hr video for a second time in case I had missed something. No, I had not.
Our Council works hard to deal with many aspects that fall under their purview, but at this meeting the President, Mr. Pack, was repeatedly unable to conduct the meeting in accordance with proper procedural rules…. rules of any kind! As bizarre as the entire meeting was, the video would make for an excellent introduction to any teaching/curricula on diversity that may be undertaken in the (hopefully) very near future for Talbot County. And while they are at it, developers could attach messaging for public policy and government classes in high schools. There were no calls for points of order, no Robert’s rules applied, and most appalling, the demand to mute recognized, off -site speakers that was actually followed robotically. This was not a currently run WH press conference where similar is often used, this was a public County Council meeting! Should we also have Sergeant-at-Arms to remove Council speakers when they are as out of control as was one? If you have ever chaired, led or attended a meeting using proper rules of order, bylaws and other accepted protocols you would have been alarmed at the conduct of this meeting.
A few specifics: One member was most egregious in her disregard for process, disdain for correction, out of order process, and decisions to plow ahead with verbal mockery and vitriol when she simply could not find positive refuge. The committee ‘tolerance’ seems to have been perhaps too often afforded by other quiet members, who also said nothing to edit her runaway moments.
Another member ignored procedure when instead of bringing a very interesting solution to statuary forward in accordance with a standing resolution for doing this in a specified future way at a meeting, went ahead anyway as a mere talking point at the meeting. I’m sure he meant well and has obviously worked very hard, but again, the Council has rules of order.
The most disturbing aspect was that Ms. Price ignored, repeatedly, the knowledge that the resolutions for diversity which she so blithely excused as unnecessary and which she said could be simply addressed by the County Manager adopting some statement the Council could consider later, was repeatedly corrected by Mr. Pack. His correction was that the only formal vehicle for getting any statement or policies/reporting into the County documents was by directive and required to be by Council resolution. But no, she would not accede to that and continued with her own blindered, privileged POV that it was simply not needed, no cases, the County was doing just fine (thank you) and it would just bring focus where none was needed (ah.. likely her main issue).
However, did everyone present or later providing Spy et al. commentary miss the fact that the County manager, (Mr. Hollis), appropriately lauded by Price and others, sat present at the meeting, and in response to her statements said that he a) needed the Council’s support via the resolutions b) that there were indeed racial and diversity issues perhaps unknown to her in the County, (reiterated by Pack) and c) that although he felt the County was making progress on diversity it needed to do much more?! What else and from whom would a statement be needed in order for him to be able to move forward? Was that not enough? No; not for that member.
On they went wasting time hearing obfuscation about committees we did not need (but which were never called for–only suggested as possibly helpful), how this was only a response to sudden emotion, etc and all of this then underscored by a verbally delivered statement expressly conceived, she said, for the press “who might need to leave”–her reason she needed to read it and had hardcopy prepared.
What? The statement was out of order and of course if not for video grandstanding could have been entered into the record. This was also twice expressed to no avail. As a viewer I wanted to reach through the screen and give Mr. Pack a gigantic gavel….
We then had later excellent, followed by romanticized public comment versions of removing as well as keeping the Talbot Boys statuary.
But when other recognized call-in commentary of Mr. Potter was halted and muted by shrieked fiat of the earlier disruptive member, it was simply impossible to maintain any order. There was no reason except her own emotionality to have made this complaint—people in public positions have to be ready for criticism. No one likes it. I heard nothing that specifically violated Council rules of public commentary. Others have already made this point more succinctly. (I admit my audio reception was somewhat garbled, loudly voiced-over by Council and their quick muting.)
Apparently the Council resolution questions, as well as disposition of the offensive Talbot Boys statuary, will next be aired in separate public meetings scheduled for later in July. We won’t be rushing forward to defend ‘invaders’ of property and family as Confederates against Union per one recent commenter, but we should all rush to be heard and hopefully quell needless enhancement of polarizing angst and anger, so long waiting for County redress regardless some opinions that it does not exist and we should wait it out.
Pamela Getson
Talbot County
.
Lynn Mielke says
Ms. Getson admits that she only watched the video of the June 23 council meeting and Mr. Potter’s call to the council was “garbled” . From someone who, to borrow a phrase from Lin-Manuel Miranda, was “in the room where it happened” I can attest that Mr. Potter’s tone was one of anger and, his comments, in my humble opinion, an ad hominem attack on Councilwoman Price. Although uncharacteristic of Mr. Potter, he was nonetheless in violation of the Council Meeting Protocols. President Pack should have interrupted him much earlier and reminded him of the Protocols. It might have avoided muting the call. Having been “in the room where it happened” I was not surprised at all when Councilwoman Price rose to leave. She had every right to. What has happened to civility in this county; this country? One remaining example is the civility enforced by hosts during the call in portions of CSPAN”s Washington Journal – they end the call. Since the Council President did not attempt to restore civil discourse, muting and terminating Mr. Potter’s call was appropriate.
Pamela R Getson says
You don’t comment at all on the prior hours of items which could have upset Mr. Potter. Of course I must assume that as you say, he was indeed extremely angry, apparently losing his usual composure. You refer to the content that I could not audibly discern as ad hominem, today meaning: fallacious. But if his anger was to point out the obvious lax and dismissive opinions and actions taken by Ms. Price during the initial portions of the meeting, then his ire was the opposite of fallacious, it was totally founded. And if he only wanted to address her points and not other Council members, why should he not have addressed her by name? (Mr. Pack seemed to be admonishing some naming directive?). This makes little sense to me. No, it is not pleasant to be publicly criticized nor suggestively aligned with a derisive practice of white-privilege event-filtering. Though less accurate, would he have been allowed to claim she used “rose-colored glasses”?
I don’t expect my representatives to hop up and disappear when they are addressed on a topic to which they disagree, regardless the content…. unless as I said, the speaker broke a codified rule of public Council engagement such as blasphemous or lewd discourse. Instead I expect them to listen, and possibly respond… but only if they wish….. and ONLY when it is THEIR turn. My guess is that Mr. Potter would have vented, used up his 3 minutes, and then yielded the floor. And less would have been written about the entire meeting, save that the topic was again at the fore of angered consideration.
As to civility, it is a slippery slope. It might be said that anyone could be accused of ‘incivility’ at any time they presented anyone with something the receiver did not agree with, and this with more certainty if the POV was delivered loudly or with passion. For example albeit it without passion or any mean intent, you may even find my very response to you today ‘uncivil’, and that, only because I deigned to address you and provide it specifically unbidden, and that we likely disagree.
But I do think the topic is important and will hopefully evolve to be expanded and better understood by all parties to any communication.
Apparently written a year ago, I hope others will read the short article that I have only excerpted below*. After decades of his represented community being ignored, his own failed attempts in 2015 to garner action, and to watch the same concerns being set aside by some of the same Council members again on June 23. this article may best describe why Mr. Potter’s understandably exasperated discourse was censored as “uncivil”.
An excerpt:
“The value of civility is one of the few things Americans can all agree on — right? That’s the common assumption. And yet it’s an assumption that depends on everyone thinking they’re a full member of the community.
But what about when they aren’t?
For many people of color in the United States, civility isn’t so much social lubricant as it is a vehicle for containing them, preventing social mobility and preserving the status quo. The furious white push back at integrating lunch counters in the 1960s wasn’t about the grilled cheese sandwiches that sit-in protesters weren’t going to be served — it was about their presumption that they could sit at the counter at all. As equals…. Such laws and ordinances were designed to contain communities of color. They allowed white citizens to, in effect, civilize people they considered less than….
And many assumed that this civilizing mission came from a higher authority. It’s always been a situation where people assume that civility is something that’s sort of God ordained.That belief would indicate that some people are innately civil, while others need to have civility taught to — or imposed upon — them. People of color don’t get to orchestrate the terms of civility, instead, they’re always responding to what civility is supposed to be….
[AND THE SPECIFIC PARAGRAPH OF RELEVANT CONSIDERATION]
And so, pushing back against the status quo will be seen as inherently uncivil by the people who want to maintain it. And there are always higher standards expected of those people pushing back.”
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2019/03/14/700897826/when-civility-is-used-as-a-cudgel-against-people-of-color
Cornelia Heckenbach says
Thank you Ms Getson for the REAL explanation.
Now regarding the removal of this statue ….. people can call it history as long as they want and live in white lala Land that Talbot County has no racial issue the fact of the matter is that the Talbot Boys statue represents the glorification of racism and that in front of a courthouse !
Just think how many African American members do we have on the council to voice their experiences ?