On the little spat between the mayor and the alderman

The first online post after our Thursday follow-up story to the dust-up between Aurora Mayor Tom Weisner and Fourth Ward Alderman Rick Lawrence was an eye-catcher.

"The Daily Herald demonizes politicians who want to ask questions. The Daily Herald writes editorials that criticize boards that failed to ask the hard questions. It becomes a no-win situation for any board member who wants to do their job correctly. The way I see it, the press is culpable for the lack of accountability in local government."

I'm presuming the commenter felt we "demonized" Lawrence because the city council members that staff writer Justin Kmitch contacted for his second-day story all pretty much sided with Weisner, who repeatedly called Lawrence out of order when he persisted in trying to ask questions of a would-be appointee to the city's housing commission.

Weisner and others pointed out candidates are not normally grilled before they take the position. "This is not a Senate confirmation hearing," Weisner said, noting that Lawrence had a week or more to review Avis Miller's resume, maybe give her a call if he had questions.

You can listen to the exchange at dailyherald.com/story/?id=380386 and judge for yourself. You can read all the posts there, too, which run decidedly against the mayor.

To paraphrase the arguments: Isn't an elected official's job to ask questions, to be sure constituents' concerns and interests are being addressed? If things aren't discussed at public meetings, doesn't it encourage more of the backroom deals Illinois is notorious for?

So we have some widely divergent opinions here.

From my perspective, I don't think we demonized Lawrence; we sought reaction from the people the residents of Aurora elected. We certainly are not trying to squelch him; in some respects, every elected board needs a Rick Lawrence. Some might call him a watchdog, some might call him a thorn in the side, or worse, but he does keep the rest of the elected officials on their toes. Maybe his questions are an annoyance, but what about the times he's right? I also agree wholeheartedly with the online commenters that more - not less - of the public's business ought to be conducted in public.

That said, it seems increasingly clear Lawrence has pushed things too far. He's on the verge of being censured, maybe even charged with a misdemeanor, for demanding items, including classified data, from the rank-and-file workers at city hall.

That's not how the system is supposed to work.

Perhaps this tiff is a matter of some proportion. If Lawrence could have asked Miller a quick question, and if she cared to answer (I'd hope she'd have some thoughts on the board she's about to serve on), what's the harm in that? If Lawrence were, as some apparently feared, posturing to turn it into an in-your-face housing board confirmation hearing, that wouldn't be terribly productive.

There also is a limit to exactly how much debate can go on at these local government meetings. The truth of the matter is the average Joe is unlikely to attend a city council meeting as a civic duty; he has to put some level of trust in the people he elected to serve his community. More likely, it's someone whose ox is being gored who shows up at the meetings. As one online commenter put it, "Too many times board meetings are hijacked by grandstanders and gadflys."

That's a real dichotomy. On one hand, the verbal sparring among local leaders makes for great reading - and we're only too happy to bring it to you. On the other, there's a far less sexy issue of the efficient conducting of business. From that standpoint, wouldn't it be nice if there were a happy medium, a way for Lawrence to get his questions answered without it turning into a confrontation?

There's a ray of hope. After Avis Miller's appointment, Lawrence approached her and said he meant nothing personal, perhaps they could meet for coffee next week and discuss her appointment, issues related to the housing commission.

Both parties agreed.