A good number of City of Rye residents attended the Extraordinary Council
Meeting on the afternoon of Friday, June 16 to try and understand why four of the
seven City Councilmembers were insisting on spending the City’s money to defend
against a perceived injury to their reputations. After all, Epictetus wrote, “If you
are ever tempted to look for outside approval, you have compromised your own
integrity.”
It surprised me — and admittedly somewhat upset me — that the mayor arrived
some twenty minutes late, as I have always valued punctuality as good manners
and respectful of others. But I came with an open mind, which, as we were to find
out, both quickly and time and time again during the discussion, at least four City
Councilmembers most definitely did not. Indeed, my first reaction was that the
meeting was not about what is best for the City of Rye, but about bruised egos and
wounded pride…and at least two Councilmembers were quite open and vocal about
that.
Having listened to the saga, my first reaction, had I been a Councilmember, would
have been to thank the member who requested an opinion from the Board of
Ethics. My apology would have been immediately forthcoming and without
reservation, for not seeing what others perceived as the appearance of a conflict of
interest; I would have wished, whatever the cost to my reputation, my ego, and
perceived intelligence, to avoid even a whiff of personal gain or advantage from
holding elected office.
Secondly, I would have thanked the Board of Ethics for reviewing the matter and
respected their opinion. After all, why have a Board of Ethics if you do not intend
to refer ethical matters to them and respect their decision?
And, lastly, what amazed me was that there was so much umbrage taken by four
members to the fact that the Board of Ethics opinion was made public. I must
admit to finding that reaction worrying. Associate Justice of the Supreme Court
Louis Brandeis advised that sunshine is the best disinfectant, and the desire of four
members of the Council to keep the Board of Ethics decision away from
public view, or “confidential”, troubled me greatly.
It is always best to keep as much as possible in the public domain, especially when
there is the perception of personal gain or advantage from holding public office.
Once again, I thought that all members of the Council would welcome the
publication, take their judgment seriously and gratefully, and proceed accordingly.
Rather than seek to gain a personal advantage at what appears to be
considerable cost to the community, I would so much prefer the Council focus on
saving money — or rather spending our tax revenues wisely — or on making sure
that flood controls are maintained and improved, or on focusing on far more
important matters than protecting bruised egos. As German statesman Otto von
Bismarck advised so wisely, “Diplomacy is the art of building ladders to allow
people to climb down gracefully.” That is usually the role of the person presiding
over a heated discussion, but that seemed to be the last thought on the mayor’s
mind.
Public life is not about personal agendas; public life is about serving the
community; public life is about serving the greater good. Allocating funds to
protect one’s reputation from a Board of Ethics opinion is not a good use of public
funds.
Finally, before embarking on personal vendetta, I would perhaps draw
Councilmembers’ attention to a Japanese proverb: “Before you embark on a
journey of revenge, dig two graves.”
