Wow – great post. The “civility” assault, as the poster mentions, either shuts the potential dissenter up completely, or spins him/her up into a fury at the sheer chutzpah it takes to engage in such hypocrisy. Both reactions suit the purposes of the “civility” advocator, the first because it squelches dissent, the second because it allows the person who reacts with frustration to be singled out and portrayed as an angry rabble-rouser unfit to be listened to in the first instance. Meanwhile those of us who try the cool and calm approach tend to fade into the woodwork. Come to think if it, this is also favorable from the standpoint of the “civility” advocator. Killing three dissenting birds with one rhetorical stone–pretty impressive. Who the hell comes up with this stuff (cough, cough…Alinsky…)?
What about Albert stating that he was the only one with a full time job? The old “I’m more important than you are” bullying tactic. And then there is Gwenn reprimanding the audience for laughing or clapping – sorry folks, no emotions can be displayed, not humor, not happiness. Never In these meetings have I hear a booing from the crowd – it has always been positive assent in the form of applause or humorous laughter. Pretty civil as far as I can see it, and yet Miss Prim and Proper reprimands the group.
How about the Mike Sedon email affair? The three of them did NOTHING AT ALL until they were pushed and pressured to do so by a member of the public. Then, under great duress, Aronsohn sent the weakest most anemic email to the editor of the Staten Island Advance asking about the email that had been sent over a year prior. Of course the SI Advance editor said sorry, he no longer has the email. The three of them should have stood up from the very beginning in complete and total outrage against this blatant attempt to interfere with our election system. But, there was nothing from them. It was as if they could not care at all. We know, yes we KNOW that the email was sent by someone who really really REALLY did not want Mike Sedon to run for office. This was the most outrageous bullying episode yet to date, worse than any name calling. Even if on the remote chance that Aronsohn-Pucciarelli-or-Hauck did not send the letter, they should have been strong and determined to get to the bottom of that mess. But, bullies do not give a good god-damn who they hurt along the way, as long as they get their way. How in the world do they sleep at night?
I could not agree with this post more. They are attempting to tackle major issues that will FOREVER change our town. Regardless of where you stand on each issue (Schedler, parking garage, multi-family housing, sr. assisted living facility) they each deserve a full and detailed public hearing similar to what happened with Valley. Each one should have all the experts testify and be open to council and public questions during normal meeting hours. By trying to fit everything into one meeting that lasts into the early morning hours they are daring citizens into an episode of Survivor just to stay informed. This is a shameful practice that needs to be stopped.
Some will argue that we need to move forward and not have prolonged hearings. I think a fully informed public and full vetting of the issues so we can make the CORRECT decisions are more important than making A decision quickly.
So who’s running against them? You will need very thick skin to endure what these 3 will dish out. May is right around the corner folks.
Hauck is embarrassing!
The 3 of them will be out as of July 1st, so nobody will have to endure them any longer. If you are considering a run, know that if you get in, it means they are out! I can’t wait to see the list of candidates.
Paul is moving so won’t even run again. If the other two were smart (ha) they wouldn’t bother knowing they have no chance at re election.
It must take a lot of effort to be so conniving. Councilmembers Sedon and Knudsen have had a long row to hoe to endure the misuse the three Amigos have continuously subjected them to. Zero collegiality, 100% politics, all the time. Boy do we need a break from this stuff…
They got in once before and it could happen again
We need some real leadership in the next candidates to beat these buffoons!!
You saw all those hundreds of people coming out to the meetings? They will ALL vote against the three of them, or the two of them if Paul does indeed move away. And then, thank God, Roberta can be eliminated too.
Add the Viilage Engineer to the list of those who need to leave.
8:32 and 2;09 I agree 150%. Village Manager and Engineer need to be removed. I don’t understand how Sonenfeld was hired with zero Public Administration experience. It’s apparent her inexperience is costing taxpayers big time. Village Attorney should also be on the circus wagon leaving town.
6:28 don’t insult buffoons comparing them to the 3amigos.
There can be too much civility
Written by Philip Slayton
Posted Date: May 2, 2010
.
Civility. Sometimes it seems the word is on every lawyer’s lips.
.
Joe Groia has something to do with it. He’s the Toronto lawyer who successfully defended John Felderhof, of Bre-X Minerals Ltd. notoriety, on insider-trading charges. Groia was said to have a “win-at-all-costs” attitude at trial (he made the same complaint about the prosecution). He was accused of being strident and sarcastic, rude to the lawyer for the Ontario Securities Commission, and prone to “rhetorical excess” and “petulant invective.” At one point, in convoluted proceedings that surrounded the Felderhof trial, Justice Marc Rosenberg of the Ontario Court of Appeal adopted the language of justice Archie Campbell below who described Groia’s trial conduct as “appallingly, unrestrained, and on occasion unprofessional.”
.
Groia has become the poster boy for incivility and is now the subject of disciplinary proceedings before Ontario’s law society. Several of the Law Society of Upper Canada’s Rules of Professional Conduct bear on the civility issue. Rule 4.01(6), for example, requires a lawyer to be courteous and civil in the course of litigation; the commentary on the rule says, “a consistent pattern of rude, provocative, or disruptive conduct by the lawyer, even though unpunished as contempt, might well merit discipline.” Despite formal exhortations like this, there’s a growing feeling in the legal community that Groia has been treated unfairly, and that careful review of what actually happened shows his conduct was not egregious. Some even think that this whole civility thing has gone too far.
.
Is it that Canadians like decorum and restraint, and object when someone raises his voice? Complaining about a lawyer’s lack of civility smacks a little of whining to your mother because someone was mean to you in the schoolyard. But legal heavyweights say there is real substance to the problem. They say incivility contributes to the complexity, cost, and slowness of legal proceedings, and diminishes respect for the administration of justice. And the volume of complaints to law societies from the public about lack of professionalism by lawyers has accelerated dramatically in recent years.
.
In Ontario, complaints about incivility, counselling or behaving dishonourably, and misleading the court, have increased to 35 per cent of all complaints in 2008, from 11 per cent in 2004.
.
Ontario leads on the civility issue, although most other provincial law societies, and the Canadian Bar Association, genuflect to the concept. For example, John Hunter, a recent president of the B.C. law society, wrote in a message to his members, with just a slight touch of xenophobia, “Civility and mutual respect are aspects of professionalism that need emphasis in these days of the portrayal of aggressive and preening lawyers on American television.” Derry Millar, the LSUC treasurer, says, “The administration of justice depends upon the parties involved treating each other and the proceedings with respect.” In recent months, Millar has orchestrated something called the Civility Forum, a series of meetings throughout Ontario supposed to provide an opportunity for members of the legal profession to discuss the importance of civility.
.
Those who are skeptical of the civility movement quickly point out the duty of a lawyer to be a zealous advocate for his client. The commentary on Ontario’s Rule of Professional Conduct 4.01(1) about a lawyer’s responsibility as an advocate, says: “The lawyer has a duty to the client to raise fearlessly every issue, advance every argument, and ask every question, however distasteful, which the lawyer thinks will help the client’s case. . . .” Many lawyers believe fiercely that no holds are barred when representing someone, particularly in criminal matters and family law.
.
Whenever I have suggested in these pages that sometimes a lawyer should back off, perhaps because of community standards that stand in the way of what he wants to do, I get lots of e-mails telling me that I just don’t understand the job of an advocate.
.
The commentary on Rule 4.01(1) goes on to say: “The lawyer must discharge this duty . . . in a manner that is consistent with the lawyer’s duty to treat the tribunal with candour, fairness, courtesy. . . .”
.
Balancing these two apparently countervailing demands — zealous advocacy on the one hand, fairness and courtesy on the other — is the nub of the civility dilemma.
.
A couple of years ago, Alice Woolley, a law professor at the University of Calgary, published an article in the Osgoode Hall Law Journal challenging the civility movement. First of all, argued Woolley, excessive emphasis on professional courtesy and collegiality inhibits the search for truth about another lawyer’s conduct. She wrote: “The law of defamation still exists to give protection to lawyers who are unfairly subject to criticism by their colleagues. The addition of law society discipline fosters protectionism unnecessarily and suppresses legitimate criticism.”
.
More importantly, Woolley argued the enforcement of good manners may obscure the real ethical principles at play. Often, for example, the focus should not be on whether a lawyer was rude, but on whether he was disloyal to the client or violated his duty to ensure the proper functioning of the legal system. Civility is not a proxy for these more fundamental considerations.
.
Woolley concluded: “What is required is strong and cogent debate about how lawyers can be ethical. . . . The civility movement should be abandoned in favour of this more difficult but ultimately more fruitful and important task.” That is how she resolves the civility dilemma: forget civility, and focus on what’s underneath.
.
I’m with professor Woolley. Fussing about politeness, as an end in itself, is silly. Sure, we should all be nice to each other, but it’s not the end of the world if sometimes we’re not, and sometimes we shouldn’t be. On occasion, hard things need to be said to people who don’t want to hear them. The picture of lawyers and judges getting together and chatting, delicately one presumes, about politeness in the law is faintly risible. Where is Monty Python when you need him? OK, I better stop now, before I start getting really sarcastic.
.
Philip Slayton has been dean of a law school and senior partner of a major Canadian law firm. Visit him online at philipslayton.com