As with most things, “it” is in the eye of the beholder. “It” can be anything: beauty, truth, justice, utility. For this particular exercise, it is worthless, as in: the gesture the city council made Tuesday night was worthless.
For example, where some (me) might see the council’s Special Orders of the Day that include recognizing members of the community or city staff for doing exemplary work as worthless — or a more likely a waste of precious public meeting time — others might see the gesture as good for morale and community spirit.
On the other hand, where I view a symbolic gesture such as the city of Chula Vista discussing a resolution supporting parts of President Obama’s executive orders on immigration as worthwhile, others might see it as a worthless and a waste of time — an empty exercise that has no real purpose other than to make people feel good. After all, the city can’t create or act on federal law. The council should keep its head down and stick to creating local jobs and fixing potholes.
Fair enough.
But, as has been stated before, sometimes local legislative bodies need to take a stand on an issue if for no other reason than to declare and reflect publicly the values of the people who make up a community.
Given Chula Vista’s proximity to the border, about 10 miles, and its Hispanic population (58 percent according to SANDAG), the issue has heightened relevance.
Whether it’s an exemplary junior college student busted for being in the country illegally because she was brought to the U.S. by her parents at a young age, or the laborer who works diligently and cheaply six days a week while sleeping in a local canyon, the immigration issue touches our lives nearly every day.
While a city council can’t pass a law that eases or restricts federal law, it can offer support or opposition. And those symbolic gestures carry weight and meaning at both the local and national level.
In practical terms, gauging how a governing body or its members react to an issue outside its sphere of influence may offer a glimpse into how the people who govern your lives feel about the same issue you do.
In discussing the proposed resolution to support aspects of the president’s executive order, appointed council member Steve Miesen wondered aloud if the council had any business wading into what he called a federal and partisan issue. Councilman John McCann recused himself from the discussion because of his role as a military officer. Councilwoman Bensoussan said in a city with a significant Hispanic population the council had an obligation to weigh in on the matter. Councilwoman Pat Aguilar characterized the issue as one with moral and ethical implications. And Mayor Mary Salas characterized it as an issue about humanity.
What do those words tell you about the people paid to represent you? Anything worthwhile?
