|
|||||||
|
||||||||
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Sedona's government has become a democratic oligarchy read response from Nancy Scagnelli by Stephen DeVol
SEDONA, AZ (October 27, 2009) - Democratic government takes
many forms; there are two forms in the United States, direct
democracy and representative democracy.
In a direct democracy citizens gather and represent themselves like early New England and is still found in some small jurisdictions as town hall meetings. In representative democracy citizens elect individuals to represent them “…whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice, will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial consideration….No man is allowed to be a judge of his own cause; because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and not improbably corrupt his integrity.” (The Federalist Papers No. 10) Furthermore, ours is a government deriving its “just powers from the consent of the governed…” The idealism of the Founding Fathers who believed the sovereign citizens would elect the best amongst them who would actually represent the will of the people and do right by the majority has been sorely tested in modern times, resulting in a great distrust of government at all levels.
Indeed, in many jurisdictions democratic oligarchies have arisen, elected officials who do not believe they must honor the wishes of constituents and who believe that they know what is best and feel free to carry out their own views and agendas. This is the form of democracy in Sedona where too few people vote and there is voter apathy. Without constituent involvement in the governing process elected officials need not fulfill the wishes of the people, and we, the people, will have lost control. There is almost nothing the people can do except hope to vote them out next time, but today’s decision has been made and the people must live with the consequences. Convincing the elected officials to change their minds on an issue proves futile. This is the scenario Sedona is facing especially since Sedona is a democratic oligarchy. A majority of Sedona citizens want the National Scenic Area designation and have said so since 1998! But the majority on the council does not. A new objection is always found. And there is still no National Scenic Area designation.
The same holds true for the proposed continuous roadway lighting project on SR 89A in West Sedona. The 89a Safety Advisory Panel consisting of citizens, ADOT representatives and international experts did not recommend continuous roadway lighting, but did recommend a signalized intersection at Andante, the real safety problem. In spite of this, City Council approved, 4-2, Councilor Scagnelli’s motion to direct ADOT to install dark sky compliant continuous roadway lighting. The Council continues to pursue the same flawed safety solution, in spite of strong community objection. We are even being told by the Mayor that we may no longer speak to the option of no continuous roadway lighting! What happened to freedom of speech? Sedona representative democracy has lead to voter apathy, which is where we are today. Our elected representatives in this community have stopped listening to their constituents and conducting business for the people, and see themselves as all knowing and make the decisions they want rather than making decisions based on community input. Direct democracy is impractical except in limited places. Citizens rely upon elected representatives to speak for the majority. It is there where one finds the fatal flaw: we assume our representatives will follow the "will of the people" and proactively pursue it. In our small town, elected representatives are continually reacting to issues and making decisions based on continuing crises, which, instead of leading with vision and foresight, they stumble their way through the process and consider it a good decision if they manage not to get sued. We have a Community Plan which is followed when it is convenient. Council will spend hours debating a $1,500 expenditure and, without a blink of an eye, approve $87,000 for a work order change on some self-created crisis. Members of our current council believe they know better than the experts. This is what happened to the Mayor’s Select Committees. These committees discovered areas for government improvement and presented these to the community. The majority of our elected representatives silenced that criticism. The amount of money our city spends each year on consultants is further evidence of the problems plaguing our City Council. Fearing they will be perceived as having made a wrong decision, the council hires consultants at every juncture, hoping they will receive the correct solution, the one they wanted in the first place. If they don’t, a new consultant is hired. The citizens of Sedona are asking to be heard. What we get in response to our pleas is found in the following statement from one Councilor: “I think sometimes there is a little confusion in Sedona about the democracy. We do not have a literal democracy. We don’t vote on every issue, literally… every person in town. We have a representative democracy. And you are elected to be a representative and to be, make, for the most part, to make those decisions. And so it’s not necessarily about how many phone calls you got, or how many people in the room on an issue although…and I will tell you I have had an interest and very big issue and in the community plan amendment. By the time you get to make a decision on the community plan amendment you’ve had meetings and work sessions and all kinds of information and you’ve probably gone to public forums…you kind of have an idea when you get into that final meeting of what you’re going to do on that issue. I did that night.” In the democracy of Sedona, the citizen is reduced to trying to talk our representatives out of a predetermined decision, not one derived from citizen input. In a true democracy, it should work the other way around, citizen input first, a determination of majority desire, discussion and then a vote representing the majority. Representative democracy as currently practiced in Sedona is clearly not working. Voter apathy is evidenced by the lack of qualified candidates applying for council openings next year. With the oligarchy entrenching itself even deeper by long term appointments of individuals to vacancies who think like they do, the electorate loses its ability to be part of the democratic process and potential candidates question their ability to make a difference even if elected. Hopefully, qualified candidates will step up to the challenge. The most important question to ask candidates is “What kind of representation will we get if you are elected?” Readers' comments
#1
Somewhere in Mr. Devol's letter the word
majority is written on more than one
occasion. Yes, the council is in the form of
a representative democracy but they were
elected to their posts by the majority of
citizens who voted. Therefore, it would
stand to reason that they are doing the will
of the majority of citizens and not the
vocal active minority who claim the council
are not listening to them. There is no
apathy. The majority who voted in the
council know that the council are doing what
they were elected to do. I voted for the
members of the council who shared my views
as did the "majority". That is why they were
ultimately elected. When they no longer
support my views, I'll vote for someone who
does. Til then, I dont consider it apathy to
stay out of their way and let them do their
job.
#2 This article is disturbingly correct.
Thank you Stephen.
#3 Per Yavapai Official Election results,
Nancy SCAGNELLI won by the largest
percentage of all other candidates. Nancy
clearly won the support and the vote of the
residents of Sedona. Nancy plainly stated in
her campaign speeches and articles her
concerns of an NSA and her commitment to
address the safety of 89-A following yet
another death of a pedestrian crossing the
road and the investigative report stating
that neither speed nor alcohol was the cause
of the accident. #4 I would agree not only with Steve's assessment and listening to the people, I would also agree with commenter #1. If good people do not run for Council or the opposition get out to vote this next election, then we get what we deserve - more of the same. Another point maybe our Council is too large. Maybe just 4 Councilors + Mayor. Maybe they should be from specific areas - Uptown, West Sedona and RT179, plus an at-large candidate?
#5 Frank, two of the current council members
weren't elected. There's a good chance we'll
soon have a council with THREE appointed
personnel.
#6 Simply put, we have elections in order to
have a representative on the council to
speak for us. Most of us perceive the voting
process to be one of "the majority" of those
in favor of a person, an issue, or a vote.
And in a democracy, that is the rule: the
majority rules. America is however a
republic where laws rule. And I for one,
vote for the person who best matches my
thoughts and views, who respects the laws,
and who will represent me on City Council
issues.
#7 The City of Sedona had at the 2006
election a total of 6,048 registered voters.
#8 Ms. Ennis I, like you, did not want the council members to appoint. Rather there should have been a formal election process in my opinion. But the rule of law states the council can appoint and hey chose to do so. As they are the council who were elected by the majority to represent us, the voting citizenry, then they are still doing what we elected them to do. If and when I feel they do not share my views, I will vote for someone else. To the unknown person who answered #6 with all the numbers and percentages. You can make the numbers say whatever you like in any way you wish to manipulate them or label them but the fact is clear. Of the over 6,000 people who COULD vote, over 3,000 actually chose to vote and 56 percent of those votes went to Ms. Scagnelli which would be a majority. frank spado #1 #9 Mr. Devol took out of context words that I spoke at a recent forum on the topic of what it takes to be a city councilor. I did reference the difference between a literal democracy and a representative democracy, which is the form our city council functions under. I did so to point out the need for backbone when serving as a councilor, because it is rarely so simple as to base your decision or vote on what the majority of those in attendance at a meeting speak for or against. In retrospect I should have given an example of what I meant. For instance, if 20 people email you and 45 people attend a council meeting all requesting the swimming pool be open 12 months a year, 7 days a week, and there is no one at the meeting to speak against it, do you simply approve that change? Or do you after careful consideration, balance that request with the realities of where the money would come from and what program or staff member would have to be cut to finance the change in pool operations, and decide against it? As a City Councilor you must weigh both sides and make the choice even when it goes against the majority in attendance at a council meeting. Not always easy, and that is where the backbone comes in. When I spoke at the forum I used an example to illustrate that public input is valued and does/should make a difference throughout the decision making process. What I talked about was my vote on a major community plan amendment, where after numerous public meetings and workshops on the issue, as well as letters and emails, I felt confident I knew how I should vote. Mr. Devol quotes me as saying, “. . . you kind of have an idea when you get into that final meeting of what you’re going to do on that issue. I did that night.” However, he conveniently fails to finish the story, which is that when we finally voted on the community plan amendment, I heard some new things from the audience that night as well as from my fellow councilors that I had not previously considered, and changed my vote accordingly. In my opinion councilors are elected based on their positions on major issues, as well as the community’s trust in their common sense and reasoning skills. Nancy Scagnelli
#10 Nancy, that is precicely why I will
continue to trust you with my vote.
#11 The author states:
#12 To answer Mr. Spado's inquiry I am the
anonymous individual who posted the
statistics. Certainly Thus it can be stated that of all those eligible to vote she garnered 19%; of registered voters she garnered 30%; and of those who did vote she received 56%.
It is certain that the election process is
determined by total votes counted of those
WHO VOTE, not those who are either eligible
to vote or registered to vote. The central
point of presenting the statistics as I did
was to suggest that 1,812 votes is only a
majority of those WHO VOTED. Most people do
not vote for whatever reasons. For a duly
elected individual to believe that he or she
has the support of a majority of the
citizens Elected officials must decide, however, what is truly best for the community and never discount the opinion of any one much less those who chose to send e-mails or attend council meetings. I think the greatest failure of this council and even the Mayor is that much of the efforts of opposition have been marginalized or discounted completely. In closing, Mr.Spado, I wanted to let you know that I am a registered voter in the City of Sedona and very dissatisfied with the lack of vision and direction of the city.
I do all I can to be heard and it is not
easy. At least this venue affords the
opportunity to blog about our concerns when
other media outlets have only limited means
for the electorate to voice concerns.
#14 I am "almost" amused, by Mr. DeVoe's
article and his criticism of Ms. Scagnelli.
#15 Great article from Steve DeVol, though I
personally think "democratic oligarchy" is
being generous. There are too many
appointees on this council to be considered
democratic, and the attitudes of some of the
councilors sounds more like a
let-them-eat-cake plutocracy.
#16 Perhaps someone with knowledge on the
subject could help me. Perhaps a council
member, since it appears they read this
column. What will the final cost of the
continuous lighting along SR89A? Is there an
amount at which ADOT will stop and the city
will pay the balance? Who pays for the
electricity? What is the estimated annual
electrical cost and who pays for it? Is that
amount already in city budget or will other
cuts have to be made to meals on wheel, the
human society, sedona arts, sedona recycles,
etc? Who is responsible for maintenance
costs? Will there have to be new hirees
specifically to work on continuous lighting?
Where is the study from Tucson where
flashing crosswalks were implemented?
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Home | Community | Entertainment | Newsletter | Classifieds | About | Contact | Ad Rates
Copyright © 2009 Sedona.biz LLC
|
