OK, TIME OUT FROM THE PRESSING ISSUES OF THE DAY. Let’s just take a little break from thinking about railroad tankers, air pollution and climate change. We can leave dysfunctional two-party politics, health care, the NSA and the tea party to someone else for a few minutes. We can always come back to them.
Today I have to ask: Since when is an elected official not allowed to advocate a vision and distribute information and opinions? In a recent letter to the editor, a local resident continued his unprecedented three-year public attack on Mayor Elizabeth Patterson. He seems to think that the mayor’s e-Alerts should be free of any thought or concern for the future of our beloved city.
It is true that an elected official’s free speech is different from ours, governed by particular ethical and legal considerations. Under “Ethics Training Courses,” the California Attorney General’s Office cites Government Code Section 84308, and describes The Common Law Doctrine Against Conflicts of Interest: “This court-made doctrine provides that a public officer is impliedly bound to exercise his or her powers with disinterested skill, zeal, and diligence and primarily for the benefit of the public.”
The key word here is “disinterested.” If you Google “disinterested,” there is a lot of applicable information. For example:
“‘Disinterested’ Not the Same as ‘Uninterested,’” by Maeve Maddox:
“The constant misuse of disinterested for uninterested is breaking down a very useful distinction of meaning. To be uninterested is to be lacking in any sense of engagement with the matter: Sallie is uninterested in algebra. To be disinterested is to lack bias: Let the company call in a disinterested mediator to settle the dispute.”
You also find this:
“dis•in•ter•est•ed — adjective: 1. not influenced by considerations of personal advantage: a banker is under an obligation to give disinterested advice.”
Citing several sources, Councilman Tom Butt of Richmond has written, “…unbiased and unprejudiced are synonyms of disinterested. Having an opinion or being passionate about something is not the same as being prejudiced. … having and stating an opinion is not having an ‘interest’ in something unless it is unreasonable, unfair or based on some kind of personal gain.”
Our mayor was well informed and passionate on issues of environmental sustainability in her three successful election campaigns. For a decade now, she and her vision have been endorsed by the citizens of Benicia. We cannot reasonably expect her to be uninterested in Benicia’s greenhouse gas emissions, fossil fuel production and use. As a professional with decades of experience in governmental regulatory affairs, Mayor Patterson has been exceptionally mindful in making disinterested — that is, unbiased and unprejudiced — fact-based decisions. During official proceedings and outside those meetings, she is, and should continue to be, outspoken in her visionary leadership here in Benicia and throughout California on issues that have far-reaching implications for our future.
We are fortunate to have an informed leader who is steeped in the science, literature and governmental regulations of our day. Her interest, it seems to me, is on our behalf: to provide for the public health, welfare and safety, including everything from potholes, parks and policing to economic stability, arts and culture, and yes, Benicia’s contribution to reversing global climate change. More of us need to weigh in more often to support her good work and to call out those who would so easily dismiss her expertise.
Some will criticize my defense of the mayor, suggesting that I should not even respond to the ridiculous charges brought repeatedly on the pages of our local newspaper by a single citizen. Some will say I should keep the focus on more pressing issues currently before us: Valero’s proposed Crude-by-Rail Project, or the air monitoring equipment that sits mothballed, or Benicia’s economy. Maybe so. But it seems to me that while our mayor keeps HER eyes on the pressing issues, someone should speak up on issues of free speech in our town, and the value of electing engaged individuals who reach out to inform and alert the public — and who lead us into the future with a high degree of imagination and courage.
Roger Straw is a Benicia resident.
Sharing is caring!
Oh, Roger…that guy is so out to lunch, he’s not even a paper bag…no fortune cookie, no wrapper, no label. I can’t even read him anymore. Gnats buzzing carry more weight and validity. My canary is brighter, and I don’t even have one. But I always value your input. Peter Bray, Benicia, CA
Perhaps it is this local resident’s upbringing. Back in the day women stayed home and did the shopping, cooking, laundry and took care of the kids, A woman mayor? No way! Next you know, there will be female firefighters, astronauts, scientist, captains of industry and heads of state. If a woman must take some initiative in making a go go of it, then it best be as a movie star or in the world of fashion. Gosh darn it! A woman has got to know her limitations.
Oh yeah, women make for great schoolmarms, as well.
Roger stated:Some will criticize my defense of the mayor, suggesting that I should not even respond
Count me in the former group and not the latter, as Mr. Straw has every right to defend his personal views regarding any subject of his choosing.
I will get to my criticism of the above piece, after a note personal disclosure: I have worked on two Benicia city committees with the Mayor (she was not Mayor at the time) and found her to be very knowledgeable on the subjects discussed, wholly professional in all matters, supportive of all legal obligations (Brown Act) and a pleasure to work with. She and I are not on the same page politically, but that had no bearing on my interactions with her, or my opinion on her conduct on those committees. I have also personally expressed the above to the letter writer who remains the unnamed focus of Mr. Straw’s commentary.
I find it more than a tad disingenuous that Mr. Straw could write the above without a note of disclosure regarding his relationship with Mayor Patterson.
As long as we are defining words for the readers, allow me to clarify:
Disingenuous –
1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating.
2. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.
As a co-chair of the Mayor’s election committee, Mr. Straw is hardly a ‘disinterested’ third party in this discussion. Failure to mention that very pertinent fact certainly qualifies as being ‘not straight forward or candid’.
The campaign was over for most of us in November of 2011. Unfortunately, some continue to wage campaign-like attacks. My relationship as campaign chair ended long ago. I write now as an observer of the local scene, a citizen of Benicia, and yes, a supporter of good leaders in Benicia and beyond.
Reverend Straw in the Mayor’s e-mail Alerts she is identified as the Mayor with a city e-mail address also. These e-mail alerts are now not just community service alerts anymore. They now take on a personal biased and negative comments about the Valero Three Rail project without even mentioning the project. Reverend Straw in one of her previous e-Alerts she even had your Forum article with pictures and all. Go back to the e-alert on the digital bill boards and tell me Reverend Straw those were not against that issue. She did vote against is but it passed anyway. Yes Reverend Straw when someone is in a position to possibly vote on an issue it can be a problem if negative e-alerts are sent out on the project without even mentioning it. If this project was not going through the process or for that matter not a subject do you think that e-alert about the rail car issue in Alabama would have even been on the Mayor’s radar? I will answer that it would not have been. Reverend Straw you mentioned the word opinion in your article. So I do believe you do think the mayor was issuing an opinion on the issue.. That alone could take her right out of the voting picture if that does happen. I have no problem with commenters making a statement about the LTTE writer but they at least should be accurate about the LTTE writer. They have no idea where the LTTE stands on womens issues as one stated and made an assumption rather than a fact. The other makes mixed up comments that make no sense at all. The issue is about the e-alerts and are they biased and negative opinions. Reverend Straw you did clarify that very clearly that they are opinions and not just information. So I guess you think the mayor should rescuse herself if it comes to a council vote. Reverend Straw are you against the Valero Three Rail Project? Reverend Straw now that we have clarified the fact that the e-alerts are opinins do you think the Mayor is against the project by Valero?
I think Mr. Livesay should read the Constitution. When I recently reread the first amendment I did not see an exception there for elected officials. Freedom of speech is for everyone. He seems to confuse the different branches of our government. The judicial branch mush be unbiased in interpreting the laws. The executive and legislative branches pass laws, support and oppose projects freely. They can support or oppose whatever they want. They must excuse themselves from voting if they have some sort of financial or property interest in the matter, not because they have strong opinions about it. We elect our officials because they have opinions about things, not because they are uninformed. It is the major’s job to look out for the public interest of the citizens of this city, and she does that extremely well.
If that is the case then her opinion should not be biased in anyway. This A non-partisan position it is not a partisan position. Better keep your eye on the planning commission while you are at it. Are you for or againt the Valero Three Rail Project.?
You’re all alone Bob. All alone.
Wrong again Hank. I have a lot of support just not from you .
Prove it.
Let me be straightforward and candid…….in 2011 I was the co-chair for the re-election of Elizabeth Patterson. Now that we have that out of the way, I think it is important to reiterate that Mayor Patterson is disseminating her opinions because her constituency has asked for them and because she wants to keep people informed. Not only to we get informed about city matters, but we have the opportunity to respond, in depth, to a particular issue.
How would you make up your mind about a person if you didn’t know what he/she thought about issues that were important to you or to the City? Her e-alerts help me understand her take on an issue, which is not only her responsibility but her right as the Mayor and as a citizen. As Kathy mentioned, what the Mayor cannot do is profit or have a financial interest in an issue and then participate in decisions regarding that issue.
Clearly you, Mr. Livesay, like to give your opinion as well, and so do I. The difference is, you complain. Mayor Patterson’s supporters volunteer to help on a commission or committee, attend meetings and are part of the solution not part of the problem. Give it a rest, Mr. Livesay. We are lucky to have such a smart, well informed, passionate and hardworking Mayor who keeps us up to date on what she thinks about the issues of the day in Benicia.
Susan Street
Sorry Susan I will not give it a rest. When the Mayors opinion could effect the outcome of a project she should without a doubt rescuse herself. If you did not know the agenda of the Mayor when you were her co-chair why would you support her? You I assume knew very well what her agenda and opinions were then and are now. You support them and that is fine. Because I do not happen to agree with the mayors, Reverend Straw, Kathy Kerride or yours that is my right. All of you have now stated that in fact the e-mail alerts are in fact an opinion. By the way I am not the only one who is concerned about the mayors e-mail alerts. It could very well become an issue. Yes if it comes to a council vote she should rescuse herself. By the way why has the mayor polarized the council? Are you Susan against the Three Rail Project by Valero?
Recuse, Bob. Recuse.
Note how this individual has no support in his contentions. Note also how he keeps trying to trap people into declaring their support or opposition of the Valero project, in a some misguided and impotent effort to hurt the mayor. Note how tired and false his arguments are. Note, finally, that he and he alone has raised the specter of litigation, repeatedly, as if he wants to see the city sued. I believe he does, baseless as any lawsuit would be.
Sorry HANK you are out of touch.
No one is more out of touch than you Bob, the most loathed man in Benicia.
prove it
Ha! You know it’s true.
Thanks Roger for this very strong and articulate piece. I consider it the last word on the subject.