Date published: 10/1/2002

JUST WHEN YOU THINK the Fredericksburg City Council has calmed down, the usual cast of characters never fails to make it interesting once again.

The lawsuit brought to court by former Councilman Gordon Shelton and his brain-trust paints itself as a defense of open government in the same way a spoiled child caught with his hand in the cookie jar tattletales on his siblings for the smallest infractions.

My apologies to these new crusaders for open government, but one can't help but point out the absurdity of Mayor Bill Beck, Vice Mayor Scott Howson, and Councilmen Billy Withers, Tom Fortune and Matt Kelly being strung up by those who demanded government for the special interests first and the citizens a distant second.

What's more, the evidence provided is dubious, to say the least. A quick scan of the exhibits presented show times between e-mails of three hours or more, hardly something that would qualify for the instantaneous communication proscribed by law.

The agenda of these e-mails is also, for the most part, unremarkable--apart from the humorous suggestion by a citizen that "rhythmic drumming" could be used to help bring City Council together. Contrary to the claims of the lawsuit, conspiracies of backroom deals and closed-door meetings must be made of sterner stuff.

Furthermore, nothing in the lawsuit seems to justify the massive fine recommended by the plaintiffs, fines that would indeed make City Council the playground of those who could afford such frivolity.

Punishments should ideally fit the crimes committed. When one sees a case like this hauled in before a courtroom, one immediately questions whether the accusers see an opportunity for justice, or are simply abusing justice in the name of opportunism.

That having been said, Mayor Beck and his colleagues did run on a pledge of open and honest government. While their actions may be with the best of intentions, meetings that are not open to the public are a violation of that pledge, however innocuous they may be.

It must be stressed that nothing malicious was intended by the current members of the council. Indeed, it could be argued that the mayor's actions were symptomatic of the former conditions within city government, and rightly so. No one should criticize him for holding and operating upon that perception.

At most, what can be drawn out from this latest fiasco is not a conviction, but an excellent civics lesson. Sometimes defenders of what's right take their mission too far. With the good-hearted intention to protect the city from those who would take advantage of her residents, the current majority made the same mistake as its predecessors, albeit without developers in mind.

Read more stories about Fredericksburg
Date published: 10/1/2002