A Look Inside the Montrose City Council Meeting

by Jason Conant

Regular City Council Meeting

After reading stories and watching videos about recent Montrose City Council meetings, I decided it was time to attend one myself and see firsthand what was actually taking place.

What I witnessed was considerably different from some of what I had seen portrayed on social media and elsewhere.

I went into the meeting wanting to look at two things: how the Council, city employees, and citizens conducted themselves, and the political issues being discussed. I also want to distinguish between what I personally observed and what is simply my opinion.

What I Witnessed

The meeting began promptly at 6:00 PM with the normal proceedings, followed by public comment on non-agenda items.

This is where things became interesting.

I had heard these meetings described as hateful, disrespectful, and unprofessional. There was certainly some of that on display Tuesday night. However, from where I sat, much of it was not coming from the City Council or city employees. It was coming from some members of the public addressing the Council.

Not everyone behaved this way. Several people expressed their concerns respectfully, whether I agreed with them or not. But others crossed the line, in my opinion, from constructive criticism into anger, accusations, and personal attacks.

Meanwhile, I thought Council members handled the criticism professionally and allowed speakers considerable opportunity to express themselves.

Let me be clear: I strongly support freedom of speech and the public's right to criticize government. Citizens absolutely have the right to disagree with elected officials and demand answers.

But having the right to say something doesn't automatically make it factual, respectful, productive, or beyond criticism.

The Ordinances

The Council eventually moved to the second reading of Ordinance 2727, followed by another period of public comment.

I actually began recording on my phone because I wanted to see for myself the disruptive and out-of-control City Council I had heard so much about.

Instead, many of the same citizens returned to the microphone, and much of the same anger and hostility returned with them.

An important point seemed to be getting lost: as I understood the action before Council, approving the ordinance did not itself enact the underlying proposal. It advanced the question toward the November ballot, allowing the voters to ultimately decide.

If you support it, vote yes. If you oppose it, vote no.

Ordinance 2727 eventually passed 3–2. A similar process followed with three additional ordinances, including additional public comment and Council votes.

After sitting through several hours of this, my impression was that some of the frustration in the room went beyond the individual ordinances and reflected dissatisfaction with the previous City Council election and its outcome.

And that's okay.

You don't have to like who won an election. You don't have to agree with the direction of the Council or support what they propose.

But at what point does legitimate disagreement stop being productive civic participation and become personal hostility, misinformation, and disruption?

Several speakers demanded transparency and bipartisanship. Yet I found myself wondering how preventing voters from having the opportunity to decide these questions accomplishes either goal.

Put the questions on the ballot. Make your argument. Present the facts. Campaign for your position. Then let the citizens of Montrose vote.

Isn't that what elections are for?

My Conclusion

I went to Tuesday night's meeting expecting to witness an unruly and disrespectful City Council. Instead, my concerns by the end of the evening were largely directed elsewhere.

I witnessed a relatively small but vocal group of citizens who appeared deeply unhappy with the direction of their local government. They have every right to feel that way and every right to speak.

But disagreement doesn't require disrespect. Free speech doesn't automatically make a statement true. And losing an election or Council vote doesn't mean democracy has failed. Sometimes democracy simply means your side didn't win.

I also believe the newly elected Council members have raised allegations and concerns about possible wrongdoing within Montrose city government. Regardless of political affiliation, legitimate allegations should be investigated. If nothing improper occurred, an investigation can help establish that. If wrongdoing is discovered, it should be addressed.

Accountability shouldn't depend on which political side is involved.

Citizens should continue questioning elected officials, demanding transparency, and participating in government. But we can do that with respect and class. Name-calling, shouting, and personal attacks don't strengthen an argument; they often distract from it. Often, when someone has little of value or substance to contribute to a conversation, they resort to exactly what we witnessed: name-calling, false accusations, and emotionally charged statements with little factual substance. Unfortunately, those tactics do nothing to encourage productive dialogue or solve the issues at hand.

My biggest takeaway from the evening was actually pretty simple:

The ordinances I witnessed were being considered for placement before the voters. You may support them or oppose them. You may agree with the Council or disagree with them.

But when the question ultimately goes before the citizens, the people get a voice.

And that is exactly how representative government is supposed to work.