Viewpoint

by Mayor Dave Romero

 

To the Editor:

 

Since there now seems to be considerable interest in the City Council’s action regarding Iraq, I feel compelled to explain the basis for my vote. 

 

Considerations:

 

First:  Should the City be considering this matter at all, since it deals with an item felt by some to be outside of City purview?  For me, the overriding consideration is to allow the pubic to be heard on all items of community interest; in this case a City advisory body – the Human Relations Commission – specifically asked us to consider the resolution.

 

Second:  Does the resolution contain language that is untrue or strongly against my ethical or moral principals?  A careful reading of the resolution shows it to be relatively innocuous.  It calls for war as a last resort, support of the U.N. and opposes unilateral pre-emptive military action because of the dangerous precedent such action would establish.

 

Third:  Since this resolution is unlikely to have any influence on the President’s decision, should the City adopt it?  The City Council did not place this matter on the agenda believing that we – as an individual city – could influence national foreign policy.  But, just like casting a vote as an individual citizen, democracy relies on each of us expressing our opinions.

 

Fourth:  Should the City of San Luis Obispo, with only a fraction of the information available to the President, be advising him on how to conduct a war?  I haven’t found a satisfactory answer to this.  Again, however, in a democratic system, we are entitled to express our opinion.

 

Fifth:  What is the feeling of the majority of City residents?  Since there wasn’t time for a poll, perhaps sufficient information would come forward by phone, email, direct contact and public testimony at the Public Hearing.

 

The Council was certain the Public Hearing would be long and contentious, therefore, we moved most other Council meeting agenda items to an afternoon session, leaving the entire evening free for this one item.

 

At the Public Hearing, the Council Chamber was full, with many persons standing all evening.  Only one person spoke against the resolution, all other speakers were in favor.  Prior to the meeting, I had received only one phone call and no emails opposing the resolution, thus the public contact I received favored the resolution around a 50-1 ratio.  At the end of the Public Hearing, I was certain that the consensus of the City was strongly in favor of the resolution, and felt obligated to reflect the will of the community despite my personal reservations.

 

For me, the need to represent the overwhelming expressed desire of the community at that time took precedence over my personal reservations.  To do otherwise, would make a mockery of the entire Public Hearing process and the open government we follow.  But, whether you agree or disagree with our final action, I believe that a spirited community debate about something as consequential as war is a healthy thing in a democratic society.