May 6, 2004

A question of bias

I was both troubled and saddened to learn that our Mayor decided not to reappoint Colin Swales to a position on the Planning Commission where he has served the citizens of this town with dedication and a healthy sense of community values for more than 3 years.

When pressed at the April 20 City Council meeting to explain his reasons for turning down Colin's request for reappointment, Mayor DeBoer expressed concern that Colin holds an activist bias with regard to planning issues that might leave the city vulnerable to potential lawsuits. In other words, because Colin brings a critical analysis essential to professional decision making, challenging the "Ashland, develop it or leave it" mindset sacred to our establishment planners, he has been branded an "activist," and as such, excommunicated.

The blind spot in this logic is that our mayor himself aligns with a particular bias as well, albeit the dominant power-bias of those who view Ashland primarily through the lens of commerce.

Unfortunately, those locked into dominant paradigms fail to see the prejudice of their own position. Nevertheless, tracking actions rather than rhetoric, there is a clear "activist" pattern in the mayor's own voting record and initiatives turning Ashland into a client state for upscale investors and developers. In which case, one could just as easily turn the mayor's argument against himself, suggesting that one bias - the one in power - is simply using its leverage to cancel out the influence of an annoying counter-bias that is less interested in marketing the charm of Ashland than in saving it.

Unless there is some clear objective evidence, then, to support the mayor's decision to deny Colin's request for reappointment, his own mayoral activism brings into question the very independence, integrity and professionalism of our city commissions and public processes, leaving the troubling appearance that this action is simply political retribution for Colin's candor to question pet projects of vested interests.

For, despite the spin, why else would one trade out a sitting planning commissioner who is an architect sensitive to the fine balance between natural, human and built systems, in favor of applicants inexperienced in critical land use/planning issues? Half the city council members (Cate Hartzell, Kate Jackson and John Morrison) must have shared similar concerns for the result was a deadlocked council that for now left in suspense the approval of the replacements that Mayor DeBoer proposed for the vacant planning commission seats.

This unforeseen outcome creates a unique situation, opening the door to scenarios that can still lead to greater community healing and wholeness. I would invite the mayor and councilors Laws, Amarotico and Hearn to expand their fields of perception and explore the second chance we have been given to get this right.

It is difficult, I know, to admit errors or personal bias. It is especially difficult for public officials (as epitomized by those who pre-emptively took our nation and world to war for reasons that any child can see has no clothes). But rather than continue following this die-hard egoic defense mechanism that immediately begins to strategize damage control and denial, why not model a truer form of leadership that has the humility, courage and generosity to step outside its own box?

In this spirit, I ask the mayor to reconsider his dis-appointing decision and reappoint Colin Swales. For I believe such a selfless gesture will benefit this town in ways no accountants can measure, helping repair a foundation of trust essential to the healthy fabric and functioning of our community.

Alan Sasha Lithman
Ashland