In a response to my 11/19 post "
Divisive Politics," Village Trustee Dawn Anderson sent me this note:
----------------------------------
"Steve - Speaking for myself, I would NOT say the board is "getting impatient" - advocates for the ban certainly are though. This will eventually come up for an up or down vote before the board, and there are going to be unhappy constituents on both sides of the issue regardless of the outcome, but to characterize that as "divisive politics" is just not fair. The issue is what has the potential to be divisive, not the process by which the board is considering it. The Community and Business Relations Committee and the board as a whole has, I believe, shown a committment to coming to a decision based on a fair and deliberative process. Please join us at the Dec. 4 Board Meeting when we will discuss the next steps in this process. We can't talk this issue to death - action is going to have to be taken sooner or later.
Thanks,
Trustee Dawn Anderson"
----------------------------------
Just to be clear, it is not the process by which the board gathered information that I was criticizing. It is the decision to take a vote. The reasons that have been given for bringing this to a vote seem to be:
1. "We can't talk this issue to death - action is going to have to be taken sooner or later." - Trustee Anderson
2. "We have the education; we had the two listening sessions. There comes a point in time that we are going to have to consider it." - Trustee Hickey
Although I
support the idea of a smoking ban in Shorewood, I do not believe that this sense of inevitability generated by the process itself is a good enough reason to bring this issue to a vote, absent any evidence of consensus in the Village.
I sent Trustees Anderson and Hickey a response this morning, but it seems to have been swallowed whole by my email system. If I manage to resurrect it, I will post it here.
