I've worked very hard for the last week or so to not descend into "rant mode" by commenting on the actions and activities of the members of the Norwich City Council (after their 21 July meeting with the discussion and decisions, or lack thereof, on disbursement of the Sachem Fund and the road ahead on Charter Revision, I've been biting my tongue for so long, I have a hole in it).
Last Monday in a meeting (technically an informational session) prior to the actual City Council meeting, the Chief of Police reported on his progress in implementing responses to a March 2007 survey of his police officers that indicated there were 'some problems'. The rank and file, as I understood one of the alderman to say, were not especially kind in their evaluation of the Chief's leadership abilities, and he, in turn, reported one of his initiatives has been in reestablishing black and white as the color scheme for police cruisers. Yeah, reading that, it does seem a little surreal--but maybe you had to be there (though I was, come to think of it).
We've talked about economic development a lot around the Rose City for most of this decade and I was part of the last Charter Revision Commission who reconfigured municipal governance with a belief that making it more agile and responsive might streamline the decision making process and enhance the effort at creating a more robust economic infrastructure. Turns out, meaning well and doing well are two very different things.
Considering how much talk those running for City Council last fall did about charter revision, I'm more than crestfallen that now they cannot agree on how to proceed. Again last Monday, the City Council decided it didn't want to hire outside professional assistance (I'm wondering if 'outside' was the deal-breaker?) to look at the Charter, but there seems to be no consensus on what it does want to do next. This, as is so often the case, is considered by some to be GOOD news, because if we don't do anything, we can't do anything wrong. We believe indecision to be patience, but as Voltaire noted, 'if twenty million people believe in a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.' Alderman Robert Zarnetske asks, "Alright folks, the charter belongs to all of us. What do you want to do about it?" And I'm really glad he asks that question. It's who answers and how many of us do so that troubles me.
It is not the City Council's responsibility to improve the process and practice of life in Norwich. That is a shared responsibility of each of us who lives here (and if our neighbor isn't carrying her/his share of the load, you and me have to make that up). The City Council is a tool and it's a poor craftsman who blames his tools for his failures. With apologies to John Donne's Bell, no matter who you are or where you live, you must accept the consequences of every action and every inaction (having raised two children--okay having lived in the same house while my wife raised two children), that's the hardest part about becoming a grownup, accepting that responsibility.
We, wherever we live, need to be telling those whom we have selected and elected, what we expect of them. We define the goals and they refine the methods. When they succeed, we succeed; and when they fail, we all have to try again and try harder. In Norwich, it's the usual suspects on those Mondays when City Council meetings are held. I see the same faces I see at Board of Education meetings, that I see at economic development workshops, who attend the meetings on the Commission of the City Plan and the list goes on forever.
Let's all stop using the past as a pretense to not map the future. When does a second chance become a last chance? And, more to the point, when does a 'last opportunity' become a lost opportunity?