The City of Athens has known two things since December:
- By awarding its contract for trash hauling and recycling to Rumpke, the city placed Athens-Hocking Recycling Centers — and its 40 union jobs — in serious financial jeopardy.
- That AHRC hoped to form a council of governments to absorb its operations and thus remain a viable local option for solid waste management.
Another fact: Neither Athens Mayor Steve Patterson nor Service Safety Director Andy Stone provided an official public update about the COG between Dec. 11 and Wednesday night’s committee of the whole meeting — almost four months to the day.
Over the past three weeks, the administration and council members have been deluged by emails from the public urging them to move forward in joining the COG. At council’s April 1 meeting, council member Alan Swank said some of the messages were “downright disappointing — some vicious, particularly that attacked the character and motivation of at least one elected official in this room today.”
I’ve read every email to council members and to Patterson that the city has released following our public records request. Not one, in my opinion, meets Swank’s description.
When I asked Swank to share any messages he found particularly disturbing, he sent me a screenshot of a private message on social media. That message really was vicious — but it was sent on April 4, three days after the council meeting when he referred to “disappointing” and “vicious” remarks.
He also forwarded an email to council from Athens resident Carrie Gibbons which, he said, “comes down pretty hard on Steve and Andy.”
I assume this is the offending passage from that letter: “Without giving solid or valid reasons for not moving forward with this project, they have put the question of Athens’ participation into a state of limbo. They risk the whole opportunity — and, it would appear, on purpose.”
That’s it. Only one other letter — an April 1 message to council member Michael Wood from resident Stacie Tucker — hinted at the possibility of nefarious behavior.
“‘The ramifications of this situation are so obvious that I’m honestly beginning to suspect corruption. I don’t wish to be nasty, but that is just the way it looks,” she wrote. “I really cannot fathom how this happened without the influence of some unseen factor such as a personal relationship. The alternative is, frankly, less flattering.”
I know that I tend to be plain-spoken to the point of bluntness, so my understanding of civility may be a little warped. But calling that letter “vicious” or characterizing it as an attack seems overblown and overly sensitive.
The public has several options for holding its elected officials accountable, including direct communication of their thoughts and perceptions. Some of those communications will inevitably contain criticism, which is never comfortable; some will question motives. Instead of scolding the messengers, Alan, maybe you should consider why they’re thinking as they do.
BTW, Steve? Describing a strongly worded letter from a female constituent as “emotional” veers uncomfortably close to the hysterical woman trope. You might as well ask if she was on her period.
P.S. Many thanks to Debbie Walker, Patricia Witmer and council members for their assistance with our records request. Yes, it’s part of their jobs, but recognizing good work is as important as calling out poor work. Everyone responded to our request quickly and completely — believe me, that’s not always the case, in our experience.
