Friday, June 12, 2015

Elected Officials: Leaders, Servants or Representatives

   On issues we care about—those matters that impact our lives or involve our deeply-held beliefs—not all of the decisions made by  our various governing bodies will be agreeable. Village councils, township boards, school boards, county commissions, the state legislature, and congress will, at one time or another, pass or reject proposals contrary to our preference.

   I cannot speak as an up-close observer on how congress or our Michigan legislature operates. My impression of its inner workings, as is true with most citizens, has been formed by what I read in the newspaper, hear on a radio report, or view on a TV program. On the other hand, I can claim the status of a longtime observer of local governance, based on many years of working as a reporter. From that vantage point, I offer a couple of observations.

    People are elected to a public office with the title of representative, meaning of course that the official makes decisions on our behalf. We elect people to a particular board to conduct the public business on our behalf. Of course we (meaning you and I) are not the only ones casting a vote. An official represents a lot of different people with varying views.


     Over the years I’ve seen representatives who welcome public input, giving a respectful hearing to people who speak during public hearings or the ‘Call to the Public.’ I’ve witnessed others who are not overly interested in anyone who states an opinion contrary to their own. Many representatives are a  mix of those two attitudes depending on the situation, the issue, or the conduct of the speaker. They listen and take stock in what they’ve heard and, on occasion, are persuaded to change their mind. Other times, not being persuaded, they hold true to their own decision on the matter at hand. In other instances, they chose between two competing sides, understandably giving more credence to the side that supports their own viewpoint.

    Few, if any of the officials welcome or are persuaded by a speaker who calls them names, threatens them,  accuses them of unsavory conduct, or is misinformed on the facts.  I’ve witnessed more than a few of these displays and can not fault the officials for not feeling obliged to ‘represent’ this constituent.

   That said, for the most part when someone takes the initiative to speak at a meeting or write a letter, two things are evident: One, they care enough (or are at least upset enough) to get involved; they have a matter that is important to them, and two, they are indeed hopeful that they can influence their representatives.   

    When that participation and accompanying hope is treated with respect, when it is given a fair consideration, when the ultimate decision is explained, then that person has been (in my view) properly represented. Of course, they might not think so; they might indeed be angry and feel they’ve been mistreated, but regardless of that reaction, they have been heard and their views taken into account.

    Where elected officials often get criticized, where many in the public begin to take a cynical view of their government, is when the perception occurs that both the respect and fair consideration are lacking. When an official does not care what a person says or writes, when there is little chance of persuasion, than the term of ‘representative’ no longer applies.

   There are two other terms we often use to describe our elected officials: leaders and servants. I don’t personally consider an elected official as my leader (in the sense that I’m a follower). Yet neither do I regard them as a servant (in the sense of being subservient to me.) 

   There can and ought to be a quality of leadership in how a representative approaches the office, and in how he or she deals with issues and proposals. A public official should (hopefully) weigh the evidence, consider all sides of the argument, judge both the present circumstances as well as future ramifications, and decide what is best for the overall community. 

   In taking this approach, a representative will occasionally go against current popular opinion, buck the party line, or ruffle a few feathers. In most instances, this should be viewed as a desirable character trait. A representative should be more than a weather vane, pointing in whatever direction the prevailing wind is blowing. They should represent a wider constituency than the most vocal and most influential, or only their partisan supporters.

     Yet, the reality is that people campaign for office by offering their views on issues and by explaining what they’ll do or won’t do if elected. They offer promises and, if elected, are held to certain expectations. Even at the local level, where the desires of a person’s political party are not quite as compelling or the office is non-partisan, a candidate is usually a known entity; we pretty much know who they are, how they operate, and their take on matters.  

    Most of those who serve on our councils and boards, now as in the past, do so because they wish to participate in public affairs and help shape their community. True, there are some who bring along an ax to grind or harbor a personal agenda, but most of our elected officials are simply fellow citizens, coming together as a group, to handle the public’s business.

    In doing so, each of them brings to the table their respective background, interpretation, principles, and vision. Not all of this neatly dovetails. There are differences of opinion, even clashes. This tug-of-war between public officials (at whatever level) usually reflects the differences that exist in the larger community, so it is inevitable.

   But for an official to represent only his or her personal viewpoint, or feel an obligation to represent only those who agree with or are supportive of those opinions, seems to me an overly expedient approach; an all-to-easy acceptance of the narrower meaning of the word representative. The more challenging task, the broader definition that might be embraced, the larger possibility, is to take contrary or opposing convictions, examine them, compare and contrast, and, whenever feasible, incorporate them; to seek a common ground or a shared vision; to be a representative to as many people as possible.




No comments:

Post a Comment