At the November 8 City Council meeting, civility was on the agenda…if not in the room.

According to City Clerk Maria Stewart’s staff report, “The City Council wishes to establish a formal policy to promote civil discourse and participation during Council meetings, all board and commission meetings, and community meetings and forums in which the City participates or sponsors. The goal of this policy is not to stifle criticism of the City officials or its policies, but instead to enhance the people’s right to speak by allowing all present to express their opinions without the fear of retaliation or verbal attacks.

“At its meeting of July 26, 2011, the City Council directed staff to review civility policies adopted by other cities as well as the principles outlined in ‘The United States Conference of Mayors Civility Accord’ that was adopted in January…at the United States Conference of Mayors, and return with a recommendation for a local policy. …

“There exists a general acknowledgment of the need to strengthen civility and tolerance in the local, State, and national political arenas and much has been written on it. The New Jersey State League of Municipalities published an article in 2009 by John C. Gillespie, Esq., related to civility in local government. The article, entitled The Need for Civility in Local Government Dialogue, states in part: ‘Rhetoric has become too vitriolic; we are losing the ability to discuss things with civility.’…In this article, Mr. Gillespie defines civility as ‘1) Courteous behavior, politeness; 2) A courteous act or utterance; 3) The act of showing regard for others.’ Mr. Gillespie explores in this text the possible causes leading to the decline of civility in public forums and ways in which temperance, tolerance and respect can stop the decline and help get society back to thoughtful dialogue. Mr. Gillespie further suggests ten commandments for public civility including: Not interrupting or speaking over someone else; using a calm, reasonable tone; courtesy; no embarrassing ‘zingers’; exploring common ground; no personal attacks; respect for all; no ridiculing or belittling anyone; no exaggerating just to score points; and, agreeing to disagree.”

The report cited a Duluth, Minnesota “Speak Your Peace: The Civility Project. and noted that the cities of Truckee, California, Superior City, Wisconsin and Douglas County, Wisconsin, “have adopted resolutions based on the principles of this project…whose. stated purpose is to urge residents to communicate in respectful and effective ways…

“If Council adopts a formal policy, staff proposes a promotional campaign over the next calendar year. The policy would require all Council-appointed boards, commissions, task forces, and ad hoc committees to implement it at their respective meetings and would direct staff to use it at all community meetings and forums. The principles of the policy would be included in the cover page of meeting agendas, and all public meetings would begin with the announcement of these principles. The policy would also be shared with private neighborhood groups who would be invited to voluntarily implement them in their meetings. It would also be shared with any other entity interested in promoting the principles such as the School District, College District, and Rent Control Board. Mention of the principles would be included in materials routinely published by the City and in mailers as appropriate. The policy would also be aired as public service announcements on CityTV.

“Staff recommends that Council direct staff to prepare and return with a resolution for adoption outlining the principles selected by the City Council and proceed with an outreach campaign as proposed above, or as otherwise directed by Council.”

Why? What has inspired this sudden need on the part of the Council to modify the behavior of residents? I have been watching City Council and other City meetings for far longer than is healthy, and I have not noticed a surge or even a blip of incivility in residents in recent months – aside from Pro Se’s short-lived series of protests that ended each week with his being removed from the chamber by police officers.

Even when a resident delivers a scathing monologue on the shortcomings of one or more Council members or his or her political posture or City Hall as a whole, it is almost always delivered civilly. And while a resident may disagree with another resident’s position, I cannot remember any resident verbally assaulting another resident. Indeed, even when residents dislike a proposed decision or policy, they almost always criticize the decision or policy, not its maker.

In fact, the only person who is consistently and regularly uncivil at City Council meetings is the mayor,
generally when he or she is enforcing some prior rule of alleged civility, as when people in the audience commence applauding or cheering and he or she tells them that clapping and cheering are against the rules. In the same uncivil spirit, each “civilian” speaker is allowed two minutes. A two-minute buzzer is set. When it goes off, the mayor cuts the speaker off – in mid-sentence, sometimes in mid-word. That’s not only uncivil, it’s bloody rude — especially since Council members can, and sometimes do natter on for an eternity, and should, at least occasionally, listen to residents’ entire statements.

When the mayor does cut a speaker off, he or she explains the two-minute rule, and usually uses up more time than the speaker needed to finish his or her statement.

I’m not opposed to civility. I’m opposed to pseudo-civility, the elevation of small talk, the decline of straight talk. and the diminution of public forums into meaningless ceremonies.

Santa Monica belongs to its residents. They elect the Council and pay the staff to manage things. In a truly civil town, the Council and staff would want to hear what residents have to say, but, in fact, the Council and staff are each far more interested in hearing what the other has to say, and residents’ principal function is
listening.

Though residents have been – civilly — asking City Hall for months to complete the federally funded Bergamot area plan before commercial developments slated for the area are approved, the City – uncivilly — has not complied.

Santa Monica doesn’t need “a formal policy to promote civil discourse and participation during Council meetings.” It simply needs to revive freedom of speech by recognizing residents’ right and obligation to oversee, approve or disapprove City policies, and to speak without the fear of being cut off before they’ve finished speaking by a buzzer and a babbling mayor.