Uncorked: Why is ‘Council’ a four-letter word?

Warning: This column may induce eyerolls or yawns. Reader discretion is advised.

When I started in the newsroom four months ago, I was surprised to learn that locals mostly shrug their shoulders at local government. The ballot return rate for Marlborough in the 2025 election was just under 44 percent – along the lines of turnout where I came here from, in non-presidential years – yet Marlburians seems less engaged the rest of the triennium.

Politically, that is. People care deeply about their community. They care about cleanliness, maintenance, jobs, schools, safety, and services which set the quality of life. They just, by and large, are not as invested in the entity and officials.

“Council” apparently is a four-letter word. People react to it like smelling the Taylor Pass dump: A few don’t sweat the scent; some get by with nose plugs; more wave it away in disgust.

I heard that putting “Council” in headlines is a sure-fire way to turn off readers of community newspapers. Thus, the early warning five paragraphs up…

Council, as an entity, reaches out to Marlburians in myriad ways – including one which my California city should consider, the Antenno app. Council, as an assemblage of elected officials, likewise should consider different ways Californians reach out to their councillors.

An open-meetings law, called the Brown Act, governs how local governments act. Councils must give residents the opportunity to address every item up for deliberation (and those that aren’t, too). Even for decisions from confidential discussions in closed session – here, called public excluded, with comparable parameters – the vote must be recorded and reported.

Council here operates under Standing Orders which must fit within dictates from Central Government. Public comment has tighter limits. Finding out how councillors voted requires a librarian’s acumen, because meeting minutes do not list every tally.

Deborah Dalliessi, a mayor’s daughter in her second term, advocates for logging Council votes. She likes an app, such as the one Christchurch uses, but that is merely a means to the end: greater transparency.

Gerald Hope, for one, disagrees. At last Thursday’s meeting, her Blenheim colleague deemed this concept both unnecessary and counterproductive. (Scott Adams concurred on the first point, at least.) The former mayor asked her, twice, “What are you asking for?” He sees a recipe for divisiveness.

For now, the matter is moot. Looking ahead, councillors who reject the idea out of hand, on reflex, may wish to ponder other new rules of engagement.

Email [email protected] to reach the News Editor.