BE OUR GUEST: COUNCILMAN ANSWERS CHARGES, SAYING: HONEST POLITICAL DIFFERENCES SHOULD NOT BE CRIMINALIZED

David Limbaugh is serving his seventh year on the Cape Girardeau City Council.

I read with gratification Jon Rust's two recent columns concerning the ongoing saga of this city's government. The primary reason I am writing this letter, though, is not to compliment Mr. Rust for his insightful pieces (though indeed I do praise him). Rather, the moving force behind my decision to come forward was his implication that the council members, whose integrity was challenged at the last meeting (me, Al Spradling, Mary Wulfers and Dr. Kasten), displayed less than admirable courage in declining to respond to the charges.

I am neither offended nor hurt by the criticism that we have sometimes allowed personal attacks to go unanswered. In fact, in these situations, I have often been torn between my instinctive urge to defend myself and my acute awareness that people perceive any argumentative exchange as destructive and detrimental. I have never understood the theory that government or any other decision making authority that contains more than one member should operate in a consensual vacuum, devoid of any substantive debate. The fact is that a healthy debate on the issues is constructive and even desirable.

Since I am one of the four vilified council members, I will attempt to place the events leading to Mrs. Berry's threat of a recall in their proper context, as I view them. The solid waste issue has always been a volatile one. When the city announced its decision to raise the trash pick-up rates at the same time as reducing its service from twice to once a week (with one recycling pick up), a large number of citizens were justifiably displeased. Without question, that action was not designed to ingratiate citizens to their elected officials. As many decisions I have faced on the council during the seven years of my tenure, this was a no-win proposition. But the lack of popularity for a necessary action is no reason to avert that action.

Believe me, it would have been much easier for the majority of us to cave in to public pressure and do the popular, but the wrong thing. You see, our choices were limited. Federal and state environmental regulations have directly caused the dramatic cost increases in solid waste disposal. The City of Cape Girardeau was and continues to be faced with spiraling costs and had to make arrangements to pay for them. We could have chosen to retain the present rate structure and subsidize the shortfall out of general revenue; or we could have raised the rates in our ongoing effort to convert as many city services as possible to a self-supporting, user-fee basis. We opted for the latter, which unleashed a wave of public protest.

We were accused in public meetings and in letters to the editor of "not listening" to the concerns of the people. Since when has "listening" been defined as automatically agreeing with and adopting the policies of those complaining? I have said before and now reiterate strongly that it would have been dishonest for us to have pretended there were no cost increases mandated and irresponsible for us to have failed to devise a plan to pay for them just so we could receive accolades from our constituents. It would be different if the city were deliberately squandering public monies and raising fees to cover its inefficient operations. In my opinion, such is not the case. Indeed, in the opinion of the independent committee that reviewed these issues, such is not the case.

When the impetus for amending the city charter to provide for ward elections surfaced, I stated that it was a direct outgrowth of voter dissatisfaction over the solid waste issue. Although that was steadfastly denied, the fact is that many members of the "Elect a Neighbor Committee" were the same people who were the most vocal opponents of our solid waste policy. Leaders of the committee denied that their motives were policy-related, but subsequent disclosures leave little doubt that at least to many of its proponents, this movement was a disguised crusade to unseat the majority of the council. Because it was not packaged as such, it is no surprise that it passed overwhelmingly. After all, who could be against such a benign slogan as "elect a neighbor"? How about "elect six pawns so certain special interests can finally control this town"? That has a less appealing, but much more accurate ring to it in my estimation.

Let's examine just a few of the events that have transpired since the election to adopt zones and ward elections. The Mayor immediately announced that the Council had been fired. Though he has since denied it, he stated privately that the vote did not fire him. Members of the committee anxiously appeared at the first council meeting following the election and began their push to expedite their agenda by calling for immediate elections. The Mayor, being a strong supporter of the idea, urged us to set the new election immediately - and I mean immediately. When some of us properly told him that we couldn't just ignore the rule of law stated in the charter and the Missouri Statutes, we were accused of lawyering - another slogan, designed to suppress legitimate debate and divert people's attention from the real issues.

I am sorry, but although I respect the vote of the people and intend to do everything I can to cooperate to bring about the mandated change in an orderly way, I refuse to be intimidated into making toilet paper out of our charter and our system of law. Many people warned the committee long before the vote that they were proceeding on tenuous legal grounds. They arrogantly ignored the warnings and we now have a mess to clean up. It is worth noting that the people who advocate changes in the system are openly defiant of the current rule of law. The Mayor, himself, urges us to ignore the clear meaning of the statute and the opinion of our city attorney.

Apparently frustrated with the realization that they can't oust us before the next regularly scheduled election, at least some members of the committee have threatened to circulate a recall petition immediately. And what is the ostensible reason? We "conspired with the solid waste committee to cause them to rubber stamp our unpopular policies on trash." I flatly deny that charge. But you might find it interesting that the only council members who tried to influence the committee were not any of the "vilified four." Well who were they then? Mr. Gateley, not one of the "vilified four," was the council liaison to the committee and attended its meetings. Mayor Rhodes, also not one of the four, reportedly contacted at least one committee member to voice his opinion and urged the committee to ratify his views.

So, it was not any of the "vilified four" who attempted to influence the findings of the committee, but at least two of the three other council members whose characters were not attacked and who remained conspicuously silent while their colleagues were castigated. They know - and I mean they know without any qualification - that the four of us have done nothing wrong, yet they lifted nary a finger to defend us. Such silence was tantamount to condemnation just as if they had made the charge themselves. Since the committee's allegation of misconduct on the part of the "vilified four" has been shown to be patently false, what other reasons will they try next? Maybe they'll just be honest and admit that they are furious that we won't roll over and accede to their every demand.

Have we arrived at the point where our honest political differences will be nearly criminalized? Should we adopt the unstable British practice which allows for the wholesale displacement of the government at any time for lack of voter confidence? If we do, we will elect people whose only motivation is to please everyone without regard to the best interests of the city (they used to call them demagogues). Because, like it or not, many decisions that are absolutely critical for the proper functioning of government are radically unpopular at the time they are made. Elected officials must have the courage to vote their conscience and do the right thing. If a recall election proceeds because of mere political differences, as opposed to malfeasance of council members, we are sending an ominous signal to decent people, who in a moment of temporary madness, ever contemplate a four year stint at community service. This is all much more serious than it may appear to some and that is why I am speaking out on these matters.

The citizens have spoken with a resounding message that we amend the charter to elect council members from wards. It is time that all interested citizens join together and cooperate to effectuate this decision according to law. If we ignore our state statutes, our charter and our ordinances we are anarchists. I, for one, will have no part of that. The city charter's founding fathers spent tireless hours formulating a charter that incorporates the most desirable city government model. They labored painstakingly to frame a structure for our municipal government that would make it difficult for political mischief to prevail. We had better think long and hard before we undo what was so thoroughly and brilliantly conceived by our charter commission and all those citizens who worked thanklessly to create it.