YouTube’s Subversion Of The Bellingham City Council

{Note: A version of this article was sent earlier today to the Bellingham City Council, the Whatcom County Council, the Mayor of  Bellingham and the Whatcom County Excecutive.]

I began watching the discussion of the Bellingham City Council's YouTube “incident” on Monday afternoon's session of the committee of the whole  with great trepidation, and my trepidation was not for naught as I gritted my teeth throughout.  (Go to 1:42:00 on the video counter)

The chilling effect of the policies of a private company on the conduct of business of the City of Bellingham is complete, as sadly demonstrated by the nature of the back and forth at that meeting of the committee of the whole on August 2nd.  YouTube not only insidiously informs the content of our council meetings (We must admit it: who is not on tippy-toes now?), it penetrates the discussion of how, when, and why the council has public comments. But where was the discussion of the profound and lasting effects of THAT PENETRATION into our business? Where is the anger at this infringement? Lip service to the notion of freedom of speech is not enough. Those passing comments may assuage some of the viewers, however, the principal issue is left like a turd in a punch-bowl.  

YouTube IS that turd and its policies are THE problem, not only for public comment but for the entire set of committee and regular council meetings. What next will be the bete noire of YouTube to which we must conform? Who of those on the council might be the next to be called out by the YouTube inquisitors and for what reason? What next will be the topic(s) that are strictly verboten or only to be expressed in a certain fashion? We are now at the mercy not only of YouTube but of every nutcake and Bernardo Gui wannabe who doesn’t like the council content and makes an anonymous complaint to YouTube that then puts the council to the question but never listens to the answer.  

Will City Hall stand fast in the face of this bullying by YouTube or cower in a corner? It may take some effort but we can find and then join with other cities and counties who, after buying into the same quasi-dictatorial system of agenda management that led us to YouTube, want to fight this abuse. Remember Martin Niemöller’s statement about not speaking out:

    First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

There is a cost to freedom and it can be high, although not necessarily so. The presentation by the head of Bellingham’s IT department, Ms Mulholland, referred to “costs” to do our own video storage and playback; she gave no numbers but deftly inserted the FUD factor (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt). One council member spoke of these costs and “how would they be offset?” but also did not specify a number. Did anyone look at the council site at Sioux Falls or talk to the IT folks in Sioux Falls as I mentioned in my article of July 24^th “The Monumentally Moronic Mindlessness Of YouTube”?  Although Sioux Falls council meetings are on YouTube, the council meeting video recordings that are online at the city’s website look to me to be running on that website (siouxfalls.org). Council member Huthman asked a question about what other cities are doing, but the IT director dodged the question or did not understand it.  

As for the issue of the public comment period, incivility and unwillingness to abide or tolerate other points of view is rampant throughout the nation and infects our community. Its manifestation is not a stranger to public meetings of all sorts, including the city and county councils. Adolescent antics are now common among adults, (Read: We’re all teenagers now”) who are not likely to learn to behave more appropriately any time soon. Alternatives such as town halls may work in some circumstances. Council member Lilliquist spoke glowingly of such a meeting in Bellingham years ago. I remember it as being tightly controlled by the city and not having much effect, if any. If someone can name something that was accomplished as a result of that town hall, please remind me. Having public commenting for a half an hour prior to the meeting is also not a great remedy in that people will just not tune in for the first 30 minutes. Council member Knutson spoke about commenters playing to the camera. I am guilty as charged, having spoken dozens of times from the podium each year for the last 15 years or more on topics that were not getting any attention at all but did soon afterward, and codes were created and modified. Not only do commenters want to speak to the TV audience, they want to look individual council members in the eye. They want to see their reactions. Don’t we all?

Three years ago, I wrote an article entitled “Citizen/City Dialogue - A Myth”  In it I wrote this:

“Currently, there is no robust critique or questioning of what the council is told by the staff or so-called experts, especially those whose reason for being there is to make money or advance their own private interests. Incorrect, incomplete, outrageous, and contradictory information from different sides often goes unchallenged, either out of ignorance or due to malicious forethought. Uncorrected statements continue in the collective memory as memes to frame the discussion that follows.”

Public comment provides an effective and direct means to provide counter-arguments and introduce new issues. I provided other suggestions in my “myth” article and invite council members to read it, perhaps for the second time.  

Public commenting is not broken, the system is, and so is our reaction to it. Public comments are the manifestation, the symptoms. You can play Whack-A-Mole with the commenting period but those moles will dig away, out of sight. Getting rid of the commenting period will only indicate council's frustration, lack of thoughtfulness, and dearth of creativity.  

My suggestion about public comment as a temporary measure is to keep it, limit it to 10 speakers, and maintain its old time slot at the evening meetings. And in the meantime:

Divorce the city from YouTube!