It's a Missoula Life

A European Version of Plastic Jesus?

"Reasonable" Leadership?

John Engen is quoted in this morning's Missoulian as saying, "I think folks are looking for reasonable leadership." That sounds like one of those loaded phrases that means different things to everyone.

"Reasonable" is a word well-known to lawyers. In traditional tort law (a tort here is not a cake, but an injury to another's person or property), the standard of behavior by which we are all judged is reasonableness. Sound pretty mushy? It is -- and yet, it is also common sense.

A few years back, in response to the takeover of Missoula government by the liberal wing of the local Democractic party, a Republican group emerged. I can't remember the exact moniker, but "common-sense" was in there. That's the oft-repeated criticism of government by those who feel over-regulated -- that government flexes its muscle too bluntly. It doesn't exercise any judgment, it just follows the exact letter of the law.

Following me yet? By the use of this phrase, "reasonable leadership, " Mr. Engen is trying to paint himself squarely in the middle of our fair city, appealing to Repubs and Dems alike. Moreover, in my humble opinion, he's trying to justify his votes on the hotel signs. Maybe he didn't follow the exact letter of the law -- but the law wasn't reasonable. And so he and his compatriots decided to follow the law's spirit, not its specific prohibitions.

Please don't get me wrong here. I think "reasonable leadership" is great. I think government is by nature heavy-handed, and I spent much of my legal career suing government for various and sundry actions and omissions. I am a Democrat, and I believe local government needs common-sense leadership.

What I'm not so sure about is whether John Engen is talking out of both sides of his mouth. If reasonable leadership means the government sometimes overlook the specifics of a law -- either because it's afraid of being sued, or because it's tired of being harrassed, or because it just thinks the law is wrong -- then I refuse to get on that ship. Reasonable cannot be equated with lawlessness. How can it be reasonable for some of us to have to follow the law and not all of us? John Engen wants all of us to like him -- but is that what's best for Missoula? Sometimes when you're a leader you have to piss people off. They'll even call you "unreasonable."

That's the final thing I want to say about reasonableness. It is an objective standard. We even call it the "reasonable-man standard" in the law. We try to think of a hypothetical person -- someone who has no vested interest in the outcome -- and then ask how that person would behave. We may debate whether such a standard can ever exist -- but in the meantime, says practical me, it is an ideal worth striving for.

If the government doesn't give me what I want, or makes me do something I don't want to do, and I get angry, it does not necessarily follow that government acted unreasonably. I may say that government acted unreasonably. I may act like the guy I saw in the post office last night, who started yelling at the stamp machine because it wouldn't give him the correct stamps. But that doesn't say anything about government; it only says something about me -- in this case, that I know how to act like a 6-year-old.

A mother who gives in to a 6-year-old's temper tantrum, or to a 13-year-old's threats to run away, is not "reasonable." She is "manipulable." It's time for us to start paying close attention to the difference.

Will the Tide Turn?

Badenoch & Crowley are only three votes apart, vying for second place and a ticket to the general election. Apparently a three-vote difference triggers an automatic recount. 

The numbers always change after a recount -- the question is whether they change similarly for both candidates. My fingers are crossed for Badenoch.

http://missoulian.com/articles/2005/09/14/news/top/news01.txt

Signs of the Times

That's the Missoulian's clever headline, not mine. The incident that lit my tinder happened three months ago. The new Hilton Hotel, which is being built on Reserve Street near Johnny Carino's, wanted to put a sign on the sixth floor of their hotel. Missoula has a sign ordinance -- and has had it for at least 20 years. Long enough for the Hilton folks to have been fully aware of it prior to building. And the sign ordinance says signs are not allowed above the second floor of a building.

Being as how you're all smart readers, you've already guessed what happened. Now you just want the gory details.

Here's a story written the week after City Council granted Hilton an exemption from the ordinance. http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2005/06/19/news/mtregional/news04.txt

The way it works here in the Garden City is that the Design Review Board reviews requests for signs on buildings. Hilton went to the DRB, and was refused its 6th-floor sign. In a rarely used move, Hilton appealed the decision directly to the City Council. Does the word "micro-managing" come to anyone's mind?

Missoulians are nothing if not vehemently concerned with their city. Lots of people showed up at the Council meeting when Hilton's sign was on the agenda, and gave the Council an earful. http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2005/06/07/news/local/news06.txt  Among those defending the DRB's decision were members of the DRB, who tried to explain that a law is a law, until and unless it is changed:

In a relatively unusual occurrence, members of the Design Review Board spoke Monday night, asking the council not to undermine their work and not to "rewrite" the city's sign ordinance with one decision that would set a precedent.

"The Design Review Board is a thoughtful group of volunteers," said longtime board member Steve Adler. And they have criteria to live by. "I think where we stand here is a real watershed moment."

Rewrite the ordinance that prohibits signs above the second story of a building? Fine, he said. "But don't do it in one night."

Not surprisingly, other hotels have since decided to appeal directly to the City Council to see whether they can get the same treatment as the Hilton.

http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2005/08/23/news/local/znews03.txt

Here's the lead from that story:

Owners of the new Marriott Courtyard Hotel on Missoula's North Reserve Street asked the city twice this spring if they could put signs at the top of their four-story building.

The city's Design Review Board gave its answer twice: no.

On Monday night, the Marriott will try again, this time by asking the Missoula City Council to rehear its request and overrule the Design Review Board. The public is invited to weigh in at the public hearing.

Marriott got its signs. The councilman who cheerfully agreed with Hilton that a sixth-floor sign was essential, and that similar signs for the Marriott are essential, is none other than your mayoral front-runner, John Engen.

John is a nice guy -- a really nice guy -- and it may be that he'll be a great mayor. I'm just a little concerned about his view of the law. The way our government works is by passing laws and following them -- this is in theory, and I know you cynics are slapping your thighs, but it's a hell of a theory and one that I personally find credible and worth preserving. When regular folks start ignoring laws, we get in trouble. When government starts ignoring laws -- well, my lawyerly response is to wonder whether I can sue them. My regular citizen self thinks it's best to get those lawless folks out of positions of power.

I know you're thinking Dubya and Haliburton and the evil Bush empire -- but you have to remember, John Engen did not (to my knowledge) gain a single thing from voting yes for the sign exemption. And he didn't do it all by himself -- he was joined by 10 of his 11 fellow aldermen. The lone holdout in favor of enforcing the law as written? Lou Ann Crowley.

The sign ordinance is, in my opinion, the number one issue in the mayoral race. I am dismayed that it did not appear to be addressed in any of the debates or question-and-answer pieces in the Missoulian. It's not that I care about signs per se -- that is not my issue. What I care about is our system of government. I believe the City Council's interpretation of the sign ordinance has created a senes of lawlessness in our community. A committed group of people worked hard to pass that ordinance many years ago. No one has made any effort to change the ordinance. The only group who would want to change the ordinance would be the people who want more signs -- the people who don't want a lot of signs simply want the law to be enforced. But why should the sign-supporters change the law, when government has demonstrated a willingness to bend the rules enough to suit them? Whom can we trust?

The Race to be Mayor

I'm sad to report that the final primary election results are in, and my favorite candidate is not a finalist. John Engen and Lou Ann Crowley will face off in November for the honor and privilege of being captain of the Missoula ship. Geoff Badenoch, for whom I was pulling, lost to Lou Ann by three votes. Three votes!  Losing by a lot is in some ways much easier to stomach than losing by so damn little. Did my daughter's riding instructor vote like she said she was going to? Did I persuade her to vote for Badenoch? Did my tennis coach remember to vote? Did I persuade him? Should I have talked to the clerk at the grocery store?

John Engen was the clear front runner, with a third of the vote. Not bad for a six-way race.

Here are the full election results.

http://www.co.missoula.mt.us/election/ElectResultsPrimary2005.HTM

Turnout was about average for a primary -- 23%. Missoula can really get some amazing turnouts for elections, but primaries are tough -- even when six candidates are running for two spots in the November mayoral race. I suspect UM students just let this one pass them by. I know I did when I was a student.

But now you're here, and I've got the floor, and I have two months to talk up Missoula politics before the next election. Maybe a few more UM students will sport "I Voted" stickers as a result of this blog. Hmm.