A Vindication for Tim Leigh!

A Vindication for Tim Leigh!

Raphael Sassower

The allegations made the front page; the details of the accusation were the talk of the town. One can argue that Tim lost his council membership this year because of this cloud of suspicion, one that wouldn’t go away in time for the election. Oh, yes, some people made sure this cloud stayed over his head—more precisely, over his integrity—so that it would cast such an ugly shadow that to vote for him would be to vote for the wrong guy.

When the vindication came today at council’s meeting (7/8/13) no one cheered. In fact, no one even bothered to call the fellow…except for his son-in-law that saw it on Facebook—really, this is how an accused learns of his fate?—and John Hazelhurst who wanted a quote for his blog—not for a front-page piece…maybe if Tim died he would be as kind to him as he was to Judy Noyse, maybe not. She, too, was a councilmember years ago. I guess we can’t expect proper etiquette from a bunch of local politicians, but should we?

It was local politicians at various levels and positions who were glad that Tim was a loudmouth when it came to CSU; yes, they were glad he asked the hard questions, and they could hide behind him and observe from a safe distance how the mighty CEO, Jerry Forte, would retaliate (“the best defense is offense,” as the cliché goes). They were right; Tim was a target, a big one with get-the-anti-vote efforts, an ethics investigation, and even a lawsuit. Really? Just for asking questions?

I teach my UCCS students to ask questions; I implore them to question me, the texts we are reading, their colleagues, and their families. They eventually get the value of this excersize. And here is Tim, trying to ask questions as a board member, and being rebuffed. When he doesn’t relent, he’s being accused of ethical misconduct, really? So, I asked him what it (the ethics inquiry) was about. And once he told me, I laughed…it was about an expense report, and whether or not he meant to be helpful in setting someone up from North Dakota with Neumann …really? We are talking about $400 that took $17,000 of legal fees to explain away.  Now Tim is a successful businessman (meaning he’s rich enough to pay for his own travel), and would he be that foolish knowing he’s picked a fight with Forte, the most powerful man in town?

So, the question isn’t about Tim’s motives or his actual expenses—now that he is cleared of all misconduct, but about Forte and what he’s up to—what is his agenda? First, who’s he working for? Second, who supervises him? Third, what are his qualifications (I asked once for his resume and couldn’t get it)? Fourth, how is he serving our community? Obviously the so-called strong mayor and the nine councilmembers can’t reign him in, let alone get an answer from him about Neumann. Fifth, isn’t it time to have a change of leadership (even if anyone can make an argument that he’s qualified to run a $1.2 billion operation)?

As for Tim, please join me in recognizing him as someone who probably was a gadfly—an honorific label assumed by Socrates in ancient Greece—when one was needed to wake up, if not simply to get the attention of, a sleepy town too complacent to realize it needed to be needled. Was he your classical statesman? Absolutely not. But as the philosopher Gunther Andres years ago stated (about the dropping of atomic bombs on civilians in Japan) that one cannot be expected to behave normally under abnormal circumstances. Tim got it in the context of our city, and his outrage was on behalf of all of us. And for that, we should be grateful.

 

“On style and substance,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, April 6 -12, 2012, 21.

ON STYLE AND SUBSTANCE

When logic was formalized in ancient Greece, it separated arguments from those who made them. Arguments should be tested as valid or not on their own merit, rather than on the credibility of those making them. At times, we forget this simple principle.

The legal system doesn’t help, either. In case after case, lawyers and juries assess the guilt or innocence of defendants not only in terms of the facts, but also on their moral character or that of witnesses. What does good moral character have to do with the fact that someone committed a crime? Does it matter how the defendant dresses to court?

Businesses interview job applicants looking at how they dress, how they handle themselves, as much as they care about their resumes. Should it matter that an employee is unpleasant, even deficient when it comes to hygiene, when assessing job performance?

Perhaps the best way of thinking about this is the famous phrase “all sizzle no steak” as a way to enforce in the marketing world that style always trumps substance: we are drawn by the ad and are disappointed by the product.

It’s with this in mind that we keep on hearing complaints about the style of Mayor Bach which offends some Councilmembers. Are they listening to what he says? Or are they more concerned with how he says it? Would they rather have a friendly, smooth-talking snake-oil salesman than an executive who gets things done?

Not only is the focus on style misplaced, it gives at times cover for substance not to be examined at all. Local church leaders, from the mega-churches in the north of town to small, local ones in the south, are preachers and social workers, ministering to their congregants in finely styled soliloquies. But what are they doing in the public square?

Churches receive numerous local and federal tax benefits, because there is a deep sense of respect for their religious role in the social contract. Would it be style or substance if we ask each of the churches in town to adopt a park in town and take care of it because of shortfalls in city budgets? Is it style or substance when some of them speak out in the public square about poverty and hunger, child abuse and indigent health care? Catholic charities run Marion House downtown—style or substance?

The religious style, just like that of public officials, may be important in retaining civility, ensuring we interact peacefully in the public square. But focusing on style alone may miss the opportunity to have candid and heart-wrenching dialogues about the things that matter most to the good life in our city.

I hear colleagues and acquaintances insist that “he is a good guy” or “she is really nice.” These statements might be true, but they still tell me nothing about their competence and substance: Are we paying them to be nice or to get a job done? I’d readily give up bed-side manners for the competence of a surgeon anytime.

There are businesses, especially hospitality, where style seems more important than substance. Waiters are supposed to be nice and friendly, smile and remain cheerful no matter how rude the customer. But wouldn’t you rather have a waitperson bring you the right dish or drink without a smile than a smiling waitperson screw it up?

Is it a matter of style when the charming, grandfatherly Chuck Murphy, the chairman of the downtown taskforce, and the likeable Steve Cox, the new economic tsar, promote the idea of downtown surveillance camera? Is the substance the police statistics about reducing crime?

Or is the substance different: what is the root of the problem? Is it three Tejon Street clubs where fighting is rampant? So, why not deal with them, rather than suggest turning downtown into a prison-yard with surveillance cameras? Are cameras now stylish?

Is it style or substance when Scott Hente, the Council President, shirks his oversight responsibilities as chairman of CSU or board member of URA?

Is it style or substance when his second in command, Councilwoman Jan Martin, works behind closed doors to appoint her loyalists to task forces?

Is it style or substance when Councilman Bernie Herpin refuses to deal with RBD publicly as its commissioner?

Is it style of substance when Councilman Tim Leigh doesn’t filter his public statements?

The more you think about it, the more you’d agree that we want the steak and care less about the sizzle, that we want to respect our public officials rather than like them as  people. As Easter is upon us, taking stock of the deeper lesson of renewal may resonate with our political leaders: resurrect the core of what should be done without losing your civility with each other.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

“Listening is a public duty,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, December 2 - 8, 2011, 21.

LISTENING IS A PUBLIC DUTY

Take any business course, and one of the first things you will learn is that you should listen to those you communicate or have a relationship with, especially if these are your customers. Without listening to them, how would you know what they want? Why is this simple lesson lost on politicians?

Perhaps those who are used to be heard, who mention a problem and it’s fixed right away, or whose frustration is attended to immediately have no reason to complain. But then there are those, babies and employees, who seem to be ignored unless they scream. Babies don’t scream for no reason at all, we agree, just as employees don’t strike when they are happy at their jobs.

Businesses spend millions to find out if their customers are “satisfied” or if their employees are “fulfilled” at their jobs, because it matters. When the responses are negative, millions more are spent to change the business environment or model, improve product quality, or ensure safe work conditions. So, why is it so difficult for us to comprehend the screams of the Owls (Occupy Wall Street)?

I was asked if I like them. Democrats like them the way Republicans like the Tea Party. And I like neither party. Is “liking” the same as “agree with” or “sympathize”? What is there to like about them, after all? They are disorganized, disheveled, sometimes unemployed, and without agenda. Does Warren Buffet, in his latest tax reform proposal, like the Owls? He hasn’t been as vocal when the Tea Party started demonstrating two years ago, but now responds regularly to tax inequality with his own ideas.

What I like about them is that they keep on demonstrating, with or without agenda, like the baby that cries without being able to express pain, thirst, or hunger, like Councilman Tim Leigh who keeps on screaming about this or that. (Full disclosure: I have known him for years, and played golf twice with him even though I prefer to play alone.) The latest is his suggestion to pay council-members handsome salaries. Do I like him like a baby or like the Owls?

What I appreciate about the Tea Party, the Owls, and Councilman Leigh alike is that they scream so as to wake us up from our comfortable slumber. They are a little off, but their effort to bring attention to issues is worthy of the noise they make. They express, in their respective ways, a deep frustration not only because this or that is unfair, but also because no one is listening to them, especially in Washington, D.C.

Government agencies are tone deaf, while politicians prefer to hear only themselves. Sometimes, as Steve Jobs proved, you listen to yourself first and then get customer feedback. It’s a stretch to compare Leigh to Jobs, but he can be compared to his fellow real-estate mavens, like the Jenkins, who paid for a salaried strong mayor. Maybe he can enlist their support; maybe they will listen to him.

If the logic that brought Steve Bach to be mayor holds, then the same kinds of arguments ought to be considered in the case of the nine council-members. You get what you pay for, businesspeople and customers agree: if you pay nothing, you get nothing. If you pay well, you deserve to have expectations. Even though this argument, actually a cliché, is easily debunked, the citizens of this city bought it, and happily pay the businessman-mayor $96,000 annually. He must be worth it!

Following this recent change in the city Charter, why not debate the merits of the Leigh proposal? Why simply dismiss him as a loud-mouth know-nothing? Is he annoying? Or is his proposal annoying? Unless you answer yes to both of these questions, then stop to think about the proposal rather than the person who makes it, as Aristotle taught us years ago. When you confuse the speaker for the speech, when you attack the speaker’s character rather than the strength or validity of the argument, you commit what is called an ad hominem (it’s a logical fallacy).

If local pundits are just having fun at Leigh’s expense, so be it. Anyone in public office deserves to be scrutinized and mocked, challenged and praised, being the custodian of public trust. But as we give him a hard time, as he seems to capture needlessly media headlines, it wouldn’t hurt us to listen as well, consider what he has to say. If only 10% of what he says resonates with us, it’s better than hearing absolutely nothing from other elected officials who prefer to conduct their business behind closed doors.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS who listens to his students when they complain about their assignments. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com Previous articles can be found at sassower.blogspot.com