Talk is cheap

At its meeting last week, the Sonoma City Council talked itself around, after a long discussion, to the right position on an item brought forward by council member Ken Brown. He wanted to establish as an acknowledged board “norm” the ability for any one council member to place any item on the council’s agenda for discussion. In the end, by a 3–2 vote, that norm was adopted.
“Well,” readers may ask, “why not?” Why not, indeed?
This issue arose from the council’s “discussion” last January about the war in Iraq. Brown had brought forth a resolution calling for the withdrawal of US troops. However, instead of discussing the topic itself, the Council’s agenda called first for a discussion of whether to discuss it. That two-step process was what Brown objected to, arguing that it was tantamount to preventing his right to discuss the item.
While it has been our position that the council should confine itself to matters over which it has direct jurisdiction, we do share the sentiments of council member Brown, along with council member Steve Barbose, that being an elected official confers certain perks, among which is the right to talk about anything you like. It’s one of the things that the 18th-century author and humanist Voltaire is reputed to have said (originally in French, of course): “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Council members who disagree with even the premise of a discussion they’d as soon avoid may vote no on principle, may abstain from voting if they are willing to concur with the wishes of the others, or may even absent themselves from the room during that item. All are accepted methods of making a political statement of disapproval and have been used by elected officials in Sonoma. But not allowing the discussion to take place seems discourteous, at best, or even an affront to the voting public, which did, after all, elect each of the council members, disparate as their views might be.
Council member August Sebastiani spoke at the meeting of his concerns about “minority rule,” were one or two council members to burden the council repeatedly with matters that the majority did not want to consider. Our take is different. We think the beauty of the American political experiment is its protection of minority speech in the midst of rule by the majority. Without that protection, democracy becomes “mobocracy.” Instead, the preservation of minority rights is what keeps the power of the majority from becoming absolute.
So, too, at the council. Without the ability at least to air its concerns, a one- or two-member minority might never be able to advance the arguments for its position. While “censorship” is perhaps too strong a word, let’s just call it “suppression of minority opinion.” That action by any name is still too strong.
At the council and in the U.S., the majority does rule and will continue to rule. That means it can afford to let the minority have its say.