Jay Kuten: Council needs to learn to compromise

'Can't we all just get along?" Those immortal words were spoken by Rodney King, after he was mercilessly beaten by four Los Angeles police officers and the entire incident filmed and aired for the world to see.

Those words, an appeal for civility, ought to guide us as we move into 2012 and reflect on the lessons of 2011. This newspaper has highlighted among notable events of this past year the council's prolonged occupation with the issue of prayer.

It's traditional to make resolutions for the New Year. In that spirit, I'm offering a resolution, directly to council to get about the people's business and to foreswear unnecessary distractions.

My last column, pointing to the legal expenses already incurred of $1,261,209.35 and the lost business worth at least $10 million, was meant to encourage a similar outcome, ie. to stop the frivolous misuse of ratepayer money and council time on projects which are the hobby horse of a small minority (one) in council and to use council resources for the actual and measurable benefit of the city. But then I asked citizens to let council know whether they wanted more money spent on gang patch tomfoolery or could we gratefully consign the thing to the appropriate dustbin.

The prayer issue began with apparent good intentions on both sides. And we all know where that can lead. Councillor Alan Anderson provided the current prayer as a generic to substitute for the sectarian Lord's Prayer, which he deemed unfair to those in council who were not Christian. Despite that original concern over the overt Christianity of the former prayer, he is now adamant in keeping "his" prayer as part of council agenda (versus having it said before the meeting) in order to assure that "every ounce of Christianity" is not expunged.

Councillor Solomon first raised the issue of the prayer's legality on receipt of a letter from Lesley Rudhall, who questioned the 170-year-old tradition. Mr Solomon's championing opposition to the prayer is weakened by the fact that he's a professed atheist. In that way he's made a constituent citizen's interest his own personal one, just as has Mr Anderson, whose wife helped write the prayer. Mr Solomon claims his stand is for religious freedom, but that would imply the right of people to express divergent religious views. Opposing the prayer (although he would accept it being said before the meeting) is actually freedom from religion.

Here is the text of the prayer, itself: Eternal God, source of all wisdom. As we reflect upon all the good things we enjoy in this city and district, help us to make and keep our community a good place for all who live and work here. Grant that through our deliberations and decisions we will provide wise and positive leadership, seeking to solve problems effectively and justly, so that with courage and compassion, vision and energy, we may instill in our community aroha and harmony. Amen.

I can understand the sensitivity of Mr Solomon and his supporters to the deist beginning, but I doubt that anyone can object to the second part of the prayer. The problem is that its purposes remain unfulfilled with this continuing standoff. I don't see problems being solved effectively and justly and the controversy itself is far from bringing aroha and harmony to our city.

Don't call it a prayer - call it an invocation, a calling together, literally. Really, there are so many compromises, so many ways out of this impasse. The reference to the deity, if excised would leave the intention intact and become the generic Allan Anderson originally wanted. The whole prayer could be said before council meeting begins. Or Mr Solomon could come in late.

Compromise. Isn't that what governing bodies ought to be about? Isn't that what people of good will doing the people's business ought to be about? In the spirit of Rodney King, can't we all just get along?