Recent news reports have focused on Councilman Jonathan Ray’s conduct following a City Council meeting – and they should.

https://abc3340.com/news/local/margaret-mayor-considers-new-action-against-councilman-after-confrontation: Ray Is A Symptom Of A Much Bigger Disease

But if the public’s attention stops with one councilman, the larger problem will escape accountability.

What you see and hear in the video is not one elected official operating in complete isolation. Other members of the City Council can be seen or heard laughing, encouraging the conduct, and participating in the exchange.

These are councilmembers who have repeatedly acted together on some of the same issues that citizen Gary Himert has been trying to bring into the light.

And Gary matters here.

Gary is a citizen who stood up and asked questions. He submitted a public-records request seeking communications from City officials because he wanted to determine for himself what was happening inside his government.

Now listen to what happens when that citizen continues pressing for those records.

You can hear Jonathan Ray tell Gary, in front of other councilmembers, that if he wants his request fulfilled, he will have to sue.

Think about what that means.

A citizen is asking his government for information. Instead of hearing, “We will make sure your request receives a lawful response,” he is effectively told by an elected official: Take us to court.

The people around him do not shut that behavior down. They laugh, participate, and encourage it.

I am not claiming that everyone who laughed committed a crime or violated a particular law. I am saying that the video reveals something deeply troubling about the culture surrounding this Council.

That is why I keep saying Jonathan Ray may be the symptom.

The disease is a governing culture in which intimidation is treated as entertainment, legitimate questions are treated as personal attacks, and citizens seeking answers are treated like enemies.

And that brings us back to another video – and one very important statement:

James Chapman said the deal was “sealed.”

What deal?

Who made it?

When and where was it made?

Which councilmembers participated in the discussions?

Were people who do not hold elected office involved?

Was the deal made before the matter was presented at a public meeting?

If it was already “sealed,” did the public vote actually decide anything – or was the vote merely intended to formalize an agreement reached somewhere else?

And what did each participant understand that he or she would receive in return for cooperating?

That does not necessarily mean money. Political deals can involve positions, influence, control, protection, access, political support, future votes, favorable treatment, or promises concerning City employment and appointments.

So let me be precise.

I am not alleging that money changed hands. I am not declaring that anyone committed bribery or violated the Open Meetings Act. Those are legal conclusions that must be determined from evidence and by the appropriate authorities.

I am asking questions directly prompted by the words and conduct captured on video.

Was any councilmember’s vote or cooperation secured through a promise of political support, influence, a position, favorable treatment, protection, or some other benefit?

What did James Chapman mean when he said the deal was sealed?

Who was included in “the deal”?

What City actions did it cover?

Councilmembers who believe their votes were independent and based solely on the public interest should welcome the release of the communications and records that can answer those questions.

If there was no improper agreement, transparency gives them the opportunity to establish that.

But laughing at a citizen and telling him to sue is not transparency.

Refusing to answer questions is not transparency.

Conducting the public’s business through private understandings and then presenting the result as a public decision would not be transparency.

The public should not have to file a lawsuit simply to discover how its elected officials reached decisions, who influenced those decisions, or whether the outcome had already been arranged before the meeting began.

There is an inherent sense of shame in seeing the name Margaret associated with this behavior. I feel it. I know many of our citizens feel it.

But I refuse to allow that shame to become silence.

I will vehemently stand against bullying and intimidation, whether it is directed at me, a City employee, or a citizen like Gary who simply has the courage to ask questions.

But I cannot be the only person willing to stand up.

Everyone who believes public service should mean serving the public has a responsibility to speak when something is wrong. Everyone who believes citizens should be able to question their government without being mocked, intimidated, or told to sue for answers needs to make their voice heard.

Bullies count on silence. They count on decent people deciding that speaking up is too uncomfortable. Every time everyone else stays quiet, they take that silence as permission to continue.

That time is over.

In the coming posts, I will examine the records behind decisions made by this Council – including what happened with the City Clerk position. I will separate documented facts from allegations and opinions. I will show the dates, communications, motions, votes, and videos so citizens can review the evidence and reach their own conclusions.

Margaret is better than this.

Our employees deserve better.

Our citizens deserve better.

No matter who the bully is, what title that person holds, or how many people are standing beside them, we should never allow this behavior to become normal.

If we want something better for Margaret, we cannot quietly hope for it.

We have to insist on it.

And we must begin with one question:

What was the deal?