HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/7/2020 Item 08, Ashbaugh
Clerk, Intern
From:
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:Retain James Papp
Dear Mayor Harmon and Council members:
During my service on the City Council (2008-16), I made it a point to seek diversity of opinion AND expertise whenever
possible on our advisory bodies – and even on the Council itself. Case in point: I was persuaded to appoint Dan
Carpenter, a known ideological rival, to a vacant Council seat, because I felt that Dan represented an important part of
this community. Even though I would not and did not vote for him during a regular election cycle, I cast my vote in his
favor because I did not seek conformity of opinion from my colleagues on the Council.
This matter is different, you might argue, because there’s a clear record of conduct by Dr. Papp that violates the
Council’s recently-established policy on civility for the City’s deliberative bodies. I would argue that Dr. Papp’s conduct is
often contentious, disputational, and frank – but it does not cross the line into incivility.
Looking back on my own experience, there was one occasion when we were confronted with a recommendation to
remove a member of an advisory committee, and I voted with my colleagues to do so. However, the behavior that was
in question at that time was a clear example of a confrontation with established policy, intransigence in public meetings,
and a record of frequent absences. This individual was unwilling or unable to move on, when the majority of that
committee (and of the Council) had clearly decided to take a different direction. (And in the end, I might add, this person
was ultimately restored to her service on that committee, and has served there well since recovering a more balanced
perspective).
With respect to your decision on the removal of James Papp from the Cultural Heritage Committee, it seems to be
motivated by rather trivial and superficial sensitivities to Dr. Papp’s communication style. His colleagues on the Cultural
Heritage Committee have elected him as their Chair three times; he has served quite capably in that position and he has
mastered the role when it comes to three vital principles for conducting a meeting: 1) Provide ample time to applicants,
to the public, to staff, and to committee members to express their opinion; 2) Discern the direction of the body when a
matter is ready for disposition, and when it requires further delay or deliberation to resolve important matters in
dispute; and 3) Construct a motion that can win a majority of the committee, based on a succinct set of conditions and
requirements for approval – or in the alternative, a recommendation for denial.
If the Council is inclined to have members of its Advisory Committee that will adhere to the ridiculous standard that you
have set – i.e., that members should not use the meeting time to “express disagreement” – then Dr. Papp SHOULD be
removed. If, however, that standard is abandoned to the dustbin where it belongs, and you are sufficiently confident in
your own position to offer disagreement AND to accept it in a public setting, then you should reject this move and retain
Dr. Papp on the Cultural Heritage Committee.
I know what I would do, were I in your position. And I would not hesitate to express my support for James along with my
hope that the Committee will continue its important work in advocating for the cultural resources of this community.
Thank you for permitting me to express my disagreement.
John Ashbaugh
1