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 being longtime observer of local governance, based on many years of working as a reporter. From that vantage point, I offer these impressions and considerations.
People are elected to a public office with the title of representative, meaning 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 input from their constituents, 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. When forced to choose between two competing sides, they understandably give 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 claims they are ignorant of the facts. Having witnessed a number of these displays, I can not fault the official for not feeling obliged to ‘represent’ this person.
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, given that the issue is important to them, and two, they are indeed hopeful that they can influence their representatives.
When such 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 this 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 (as in being subservient to me.)
There can and ought to be a quality of leadership in how those in government approach the office and in how they deal 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 them 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 who feels 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.
Steve Horton is a mid-Michigan journalist and editor-publisher of the ‘Fowlerville News & Views.’
I agree with Keith. Too many times I have reached out to elected officials from the other party than the one I voted for and my opinion is discounted or simply ignored! Some of following their conscience and some are following their party and sometimes that is the same fit but sometimes it is not. If their personal opinion is what we elected them for, they don't represent us, just themselves.
I wholeheartedly agree with you Steve! I have spent many years, and still do, working with communities around the state, dealing with all types of elected officials. While most in my earlier years approached their roles as you have described, too many over the years have forgotten about those who hold different views. We, the electorate, have contributed greatly to this condition as many people don’t vote. The community I work for only had 274 voters out of almost 2700, cast votes last Tuesday. With turnouts like that, you only need to identify the key group and “rally” around those that will vote. You then continue to “serve” that group to maintain the office. We have forgot our roles and responsibilities as citizens. We demand our rights, but refuse the responsibilities that those rights also demand. As you mentioned in your article, we all need to recognize and understand the differences amongst one another and then work toward the greater good, which may be a bit different then “my way” or “your way” but is best for all of us.
Thanks for the “soapbox”. I’m getting opinionated in my “old” age.