Rule change takes Metro Council a step away from the community rabble, social protest, and democratic process

After a Tennessean local beat writer announced via Twitter that rules were being considered to muffle the people's mezzanine area outside of Metro Council chambers on council meeting nights, I e-mailed the Metro Clerk with the following questions:

I am curious as to what past events precipitated the change in council rules to limit citizen events in the Courthouse and to disallow broadcasts from those events? Could you please e-mail me the minutes from the executive committee meeting where these rule changes are being considered? Who is sponsoring this rules change? Am I correct in concluding that the media will no longer be allowed to broadcast citizen views of pending council action from inside the Courthouse if these rules are approved? Is it fair to say that the media would be limited to live broadcasting only council member opinions on council meeting nights given that the mezzanine would be off limits?

The Metro Clerk responded thusly:

No Council rules have been amended to disallow broadcasts or limit citizen events on Council meeting nights. The discussion that occurred was focused on activities on the 2nd floor mezzanine of the Courthouse, which is the space between the Metropolitan Clerk's Office/Council Chamber on the east end of the Historic Courthouse and the Council Office on the west end of the floor on the second floor .... The purpose of the discussion was to address safety, security, and disruption factors in that second floor area.

Inasmuch as the acoustics in that space are improved only minimally with amplification and loud amplification (such as used for tax sales) can be very distracting, it was recommended that no amplification be allowed at any time in the mezzanine area. Further, on Council meeting nights, because the Council convenes 30 minutes in advance of its start time for Councilmember announcements , it was recommended that all such events on the mezzanine conclude at least 30 minutes prior to the Council meeting start time.

There was no suggestion that interviews, either with the public or Councilmembers, could not occur in the Metropolitan Courthouse. Whether or not it would be beneficial to have a convenient, designated area for interviews was mentioned, but more thought will be given to this idea before any recommendation is considered.

Live broadcast of radio or television programs from within the Courthouse, during the progress of a Council meeting was discussed. Again, this was not referring to interviews, but to live broadcasts of programs. The Sheriff, who now oversees Courthouse security, will be drafting a policy regarding this, from the standpoint of safety and security issues, as there has been concern about the crowded area on the east end of the mezzanine, including the space at the top of a long flight of marble stairs where traffic backs up , both before and during Council meetings. To my knowledge, no policy has yet been issued.

The group that assembled for this discussion was persons involved with the Council and with Courthouse safety and security. Among those present were Vice Mayor Diane Neighbors, Council attorney Jon Cooper, Sheriff Daron Hall, Metropolitan Clerk Marilyn Swing, representatives of Metro3, and support staff. The meeting was convened at this time because of the concerns stated and so that policies could be considered and, if necessary, put in place before any specific requests for future event scheduling are received.

In an interview with the Tennessean this morning Vice Mayor Neighbors, who I suspected of being the force behind these control measures the minute I learned of the news, indicated that the rest of us need to be "more respectful of the meetings in progress." As if the meetings have nothing to do with the rest of us.

Live broadcasting or organized efforts to influence council action in public space outside of the narrow lens of Metro 3 and the compulsory strictures of council hearing podiums do not impinge upon any civic process outside of Ms. Neighbors own draconian control issues. There are plenty of measures for safety and security in the mezzanine stairwell to consider without empowering Sheriff Daron Hall to cordon off "free speech" zones far away from the Metro machine.

In Your Face, Metro Council Purcell-Haters

That's Harvard, Metro Council. Not the "Harvard of the South." There is no other.

And for all of your trashing of his name during this month's budget love-ins for our current Mayor, you cannot take away the fact that Bill Purcell is now a bigger deal than you are because of his new Institute of Politics appointment at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government.

I'll take Caroline Kennedy's judgment of Bill Purcell over any council member's:

Bill Purcell will be a wonderful leader for the IOP .... His extensive experience in elective office, his bipartisan governing style, and his commitment to public service as a way of life will inspire a new generation of students.

Congratulations, Bill Purcell. I didn't always agree with you, but I always felt that neighborhoods stood a better chance with you at the helm (and the last seven months have confirmed that). You deserved a better fate than you received from many of these council members, and I don't think you can have a much better fate public service-wise than teaching politics at Harvard University.

Living well should be the best form of revenge. May the local yokels eat your dust, and please kick up as much as you can.


UPDATE: Something we should have seen more prominently the past 7 months when the Purcellophobes were dragging his tenure through the mud: council member gives him his due, some proper respect.

Political Blogging: Partisan vs. Socratic

In his massive work, A History of Philosophy, Oxford Jesuit Priest Frederick Copleston wrote the following about Socrates:

[Socrates] went where he could do the greatest good to anyone, seeking "to persuade every man among you that he must look to himself, and seek virtue and wisdom before he looks to his private interests, and look to the State before he looks to the interests of the State" .... He was no mere pedantic logician, no mere destructive critic, but a man with a mission ....As is clear from Socrates' life, he was not concerned with party politics as such, but with political life in its ethical aspect. It was of the greatest importance for the Greek who wished to lead the good life to realise what the State is and what being a citizen means, for we cannot care for the State unless we know the nature of the State and what a good State is.

It seems that assessing whether political blogging is more or less socratic depends on how bound it is to advance the campaign strategy of the moment and on how far it goes to reopen settled or stale lightning rod issues to debate for higher purposes even when they don't serve party interests.

More partisan blogging does not seem to take the same risks as socratic blogging does, and yet, it is more likely to get more links and pageloads because of the sheer conventionality of party politics.