There ain't no good guys, there ain't no bad guys; There's only you and me and we just disagree . . .

Let me start with an anecdote.

In litigation, many decisions are left to the discretion of the trial judge. While there are rules guiding who should be allowed to serve on a jury, or what evidence should be allowed to be presented, or dozens of other decisions that get made in the course of bringing a case to trial, many of them are left to the discretion of the trial judge.

When I was a young lawyer, I was helping one of my heroes try a case. After a long day of trial work, I was complaining that the judge had totally blown a decision to our detriment. "Dan, it was a decision within his discretion," he said, taking a drag on his pipe (yes, it was that long ago that he was smoking a pipe in the office). "He has the discretion to be wrong, too."

In other words, the judge's job is to make the decision and my job was to persuade. Complaining after the fact was pointless.

A friend who knows me pretty well emailed me this week asking whether I still support certain city councilmembers after they signed on to the misguided volunteer ordinance. Like me, this person views the attack on volunteers for the city as a premature over-reaction to an undecided lawsuit and a harmful restriction on the role of volunteers in our city. I've written to them all, in a very polite and professional manner, and only one (Jan Marcason) has even bothered to reply. (Yes, I'm disappointed with the other 8, some of whom are quite efficient in writing me when they're seeking support.)

I disagree with people all the time. I strongly disagree with people on occasion. I strongly disagree with nine members of the City Council on this. I've looked at the issue from the idealist perspective, I've looked at it from the practical perspective, I've looked at it from the perspective of a Funkhouser supporter, and I've looked at it from the perspective of how I would feel if someone else were in the Mayor's office, making decisions I would oppose.

It remains my opinion that this is a very bad ordinance, chock-full of unintended consequences and bad results.

But nine city councilmembers disagree with me. And they, in Ted Mullen's description, have the discretion to be wrong.

Does this mean the rest need to be voted out? Does this mean that I can assume that the others are either so stupid they can't see things as clearly as I do, or so fearful of Tony's criticism that they panicked, or that they've joined with the entrenched development crowd to undermine Funkhouser's attempts to stop the give-aways? Are all 9 stupid, panicked and/or corrupt?

Of course not. (Not all 9, anyhow.)

Perhaps, unlikely as it seems, I'm somehow missing out on understanding how throwing up huge, expensive hurdles on volunteerism is actually a good thing.

Perhaps, as happens in real life, inexplicable and apparently wrong steps are taken in a journey toward a greater result.

Perhaps they're just wrong.

For now, I'm going to go with the final explanation. They have the discretion to be wrong, and they blew it.

That doesn't mean that they're bad people, or even bad councilmembers. I disagree with them on this. I disagreed with them on their irrational decision to shower Wayne Cauthen with money and job-security after he had been caught lying on his resume, and several of them now privately admit that they were wrong.

None of us is perfect, city councilmembers and bloggers most definitely included.

If a judge consistently makes bad calls with his or her discretion, smart lawyers start taking a "change of judge" (an automatic right to get the judge changed at the beginning of a case) when that judge gets assigned to their cases. But not after a couple of bad decisions. That's just disagreement - but you learn to be alert for a pattern.

Kneejerk Nine Attack Volunteers - Tony Rules Their World

In a display of shocking weakness, 9 City Councilmembers have cosponsored an ordinance attacking the role of volunteers in Kansas City. It is a transparent buckling to pressure put on them by Tony's Kansas City - a local anti-Funkhouser blog. In a huge over-reaction to that pressure, the kneejerk nine have proposed huge hurdles to volunteerism that would effectively shut down many avenues of service, and prevent the most expert minds from aiding our boards and commissions. Their service, however, would be rather pointless in the post-volunteer world the kneejerk nine propose, in that our best and brightest would be prohibited from giving direction to any city employee, elected or appointed officials or other volunteers.

A better and wiser council would appreciate the direction offered by the many volunteers who serve in so many roles aiding our city. But, alas, they prefer to take the direction of Tony's Kansas City.

Here's how it works. Every single day, Tony's Kansas City posts at least one attack on Mark Funkhouser and his family. Every single day. On many days, he will post multiple attacks, but, in a display of dogged OCD and creativity, Tony manages to find something nasty to say every single day. It's quite impressive, really.

(I don't blame Tony for his obsession, frankly, because I understand that, for him, his blog is about the art of provocation. And he's good at it - even better than I thought. As a supporter of Funkhouser and our city, and an observer of the impact that a steady stream of sustained nastiness can have on even a public figure, I wish he had chosen another target, but Tony's trying to make a point about the public and media, and Funkhouser has served as his subject.)

Every day, these councilmembers and their staff read Tony's attack. Every single day, they read sarcastic, derisive material about the Mayor's wife.

In the insular world of the political inside, one voice heard 365 times become oddly equivalent to 365 voices. And if Tony's topic of the day is on the mind of every single staffer and fellow councilmember, then, by gosh and by golly, every single person in the city must be talking about it, too! So, in the face of the overwhelming pressure of every single voice in the city shouting vitriol about the Mayor's wife, they feel compelled to act. Even if the voice is really one voice amplified by their own gullibility, and even if the action is going to harm the city in ways we cannot begin to tally.

Meanwhile, the average voter in the city has no idea who Gloria Squitiro is, and is looking forward to reelecting Funkhouser if satisfaction with basic services climbs.

If the proposed ordinance becomes law, each and every volunteer for the city will be forced to undergo the complete battery of trainings deemed essential by the kneejerk nine. "The training would include anti-discrimination, anti-harassment and anti-violence in the workplace policies, as well the policy against nepotism." I'm not aware of what outside consultants will be hired to conduct all of this training, but I suspect that somewhere in this fair city of ours, some training consultants are toasting the kneejerk nine with fine champagne. Does anybody have any idea how much this silliness will cost?

Perhaps my financial concerns are overblown, though. Perhaps no trainings will be necessary at all. Who is going to waste their time volunteering if their direction will not only go unheeded, it will be prohibited? Who would want to risk volunteering to coach a parks department Tee-ball team if you'll be guilty of violating an ordinance when you "direct" Suzy's mommy to bring snacks for the next game, and it turns out that Suzy's mommy is a city employee who you are forbidden to give direction to. Who wants to serve on a board or commission if you are forbidden from offering direction?

We all know that's not really what the kneejerk nine want. The kneejerk nine want Gloria Squitiro to abandon her service to the city, and that's all. The rest of this poorly thought-out scheme is window-dressing to cover their cowardice.

I hope our Mayor has the wisdom to veto this misguided response to a talented blogger.