Let's talk in Oxford: Hearing voters' voices
"Freedom is hammered out on the anvil of discussion, dissent and debate."
"He that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper."
Clearly, neither Burke nor Humphrey would have made it in Oxford.
Let us explain.
Next month, Anniston and Oxford voters can hear from City Hall candidates during two municipal election forums hosted by The Star.
The newspaper is happy to play a role in this once-every-four-years exercise in local democracy. Anniston's event will be at the City Meeting Center, and Oxford's event will be at the Quintard Mall. Both forums will be in mid-August.
Kudos are due the mall's management for making space available (in exchange for a small fee) for this event.
The reason Oxford's forum won't be on city property is a worthy debate topic. The newspaper began early last week trying to secure venues. Anniston was easy enough. We called the proper authorities, came to an agreement on the rental fee and date and — ta-da — the deal was done.
Oxford was more difficult.
Attempts to secure use of the Oxford Civic Center were denied. After a day of getting the run-around, the message came from City Hall: No forums of this type will be allowed on city property.
In 2004, The Star had a similar problem in Oxford. At first, use of the Civic Center was denied to the newspaper. The city reluctantly — after The Star's attorneys got involved — agreed to open the doors to the Civic Center.
It's a shame that anti-democracy forces in Oxford haven't changed their minds in four years. Regardless, the good news is Oxford voters will have a chance to hear from their candidates in a nice, spacious venue.
The bigger issue is the city's no-forum policy. It's an … um … interesting standard, especially for a local government. The city is required by law, by tradition and by good sense to at least pay lip service to representative government, democracy, civil debate and keeping the public informed.
Seems like playing host to city election forums fits the bill. Then again, a lot in Oxford doesn't fit the bill, especially when it comes to the mayor.
There's stonewalling City Council members requesting financial documents, ones they and the public are legitimately free to see.
There's not keeping the council properly informed on personnel decisions that created new city positions, such as the public safety director.
There's tossing out ugly and vulgar insults against fellow city politicians during a council meeting in 2006.
A no-forum-on-city-property policy is puzzling. We've yet to hear back from the city on our request for a written policy.
Regardless, no supposed reasoning could win out over the need — indeed the requirement — for open debate. The public square is the place for the public to work out its priorities for the future of Oxford. Don't get confused — this is more than a denial to this newspaper. This is about Oxford giving the public open, accountable and honest government. The voters have been shortchanged on all three counts.
Beyond the quadrennial elections, each meeting of Oxford's City Council and other public boards should be a forum for debate, discussion and deliberation. Closing city property to debate over the city's future, which is what the election is about, is a step in the wrong direction.
