As the year began, so did it end: mayor and

council perched on the dais, thrashing each other for perceived slights and subterfuge.

The council’s attempt to raise “management concerns” on Dec. 18 (two days after the mayor had vowed to make changes) inspired the mayor’s shrill and overwrought rebuke, which brought in turn the council’s “affront” at being so rebuked. With wisdom and grace nowhere in evidence, the voices mercifully fell silent until the new year.

Was the management discussion meant for the evening’s agenda, and deleted by the mayor to thwart the council? Could anything meaningful even have been achieved in a 30-minute discussion at the year’s final meeting? It didn’t matter; it was a fitting end for a year that left the institutions and individuals themselves the objects of ridicule.

Leave it to the public for the most cogent, cutting refrain of 2002: “This is not what we voted for.”

Where did it all go wrong? We could cite the early attempt

to defeat a planning commission appointment on spurious grounds; memoranda and emails leaked to the press, to embarrass opponents or lever them politically; ongoing

back-room squabbles over agenda-setting.

It would be different if the disputes had been over substantive issues, or if we could identify any significant accomplishments. But most of the council’s early demands – office space, computers and dedicated staff – were self-serving. Their only real achievement proved to be a codified budget process, which the council proceeded to squander in a needless fight with the mayor over executive department staffing, a tussle punctuated by foul rumor-mongering.

As for the mayor, she claimed for herself a year-long grace period to get the lay of the land, before advancing any significant changes around city hall. But her year-ending tirade betrayed a lack of grace and cooperation, giving distinct

plausibility to the private complaints that have been emanating all year from some council members.

Introduced earlier this year was a draft “ethics ordinance” to ensure proper dealings along the corridors of power. But it’s irrelevant to the problems seen over the past year. Perhaps what’s needed instead is, for want of a more precise term, a code of conduct. Allow us to propose five points of acknowledgement as prerequisites for public service:

1. If I wouldn’t say it in front of the public, I shouldn’t be

saying it now. (And that goes for email.)

2. I have not cornered the market on wisdom; ultimate understanding of what’s best for the community does not rest with me.

3. The stakes on this issue are a lot lower than I really think they are. That will be true of the next issue, too.

4. Nobody elected me God. Some things are simply beyond my purview to change, and I can live with that.

5. The last word doesn’t have to be mine.

As to questions of who said what to whom, and who is or is not outraged, affronted, ambushed or otherwise not playing nicely, our view is perfectly summed up by the great philosopher Rhett Butler – frankly, we don’t give a damn. Neither do the constituents. But as Scarlett reminds us, tomorrow is another day. We can write off 2002 as a bad dream, and come back for a fresh start in 2003.

So to the eight folks elected to the dais: If you can’t maintain decorum in office in the coming year, and treat each other with a modicum of respect and humility, step down now. This community deserves better.