SLO tries to ban public disagreements at advisory board meetings. Good luck with that

We don’t doubt that James Papp rubs some people the wrong way.

He admits that himself: “I’m definitely a hard-ass — about ‘facts, reasonable assumptions predicated on facts and expert opinion supported by facts,’ ” he wrote to the San Luis Obispo City Council.

Should that have gotten Papp, a local architectural historian, fired as chair of the city’s Cultural Heritage Committee?

We don’t believe so, though — full disclosure — we haven’t followed each and every meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee. Nor are we privy to Papps’ interactions with members of the public.

Another disclosure: Papp has occasionally written opinion columns for The Tribune — and has often taken issue with the current City Council.

Certainly, the council had the right to “fire” Papp from his volunteer position. Members of advisory bodies serve at the pleasure of the City Council and in this case, the council found its appointee was “rude and disrespectful” and had to go.

Still, the dismissal concerns us for a few reasons:

For the city, it means the loss of a tireless and meticulous researcher with a wealth of knowledge of local history.

It plays into the narrative that the City Council is so pro-development that it’s willing to sacrifice architectural integrity, especially in the downtown area, and doesn’t want to hear dissenting views.

And it could have a chilling effect on future advisory council discussions.

“How will the rest of us know when we, too, have gone over the line by voicing disagreement with staff or project applicants?” Eva Ulz, who also serves on the Cultural Heritage Committee, asked the council in a letter.

It’s especially concerning that, in dismissing Papp, the council cited an absurd policy in the advisory committee handbook: “The public meeting should not be used to express anger or disagreement.”

That ridiculous bit of advice is included in the chapter titled “Tips for Being an Effective Advisory Body Member.”

Certainly, advisory members shouldn’t verbally assault one another — or anyone else at the meeting, for that matter.

But come on, no disagreement? Whose Pollyannaish idea was that?

The very nature of the proceedings practically guarantees there will be some measure of disagreement.

If there isn’t — if all opinions are the same, and all votes are unanimous — it’s time to get suspicious.

Either the issue has been hashed out in advance — in which case, why should interested members of the public bother showing up to testify? — or the deliberative body is in such lock-step that there’s no room to consider opposing points of view.

City manager Derek Johnson said the line was added to the handbook in 2015 “to emphasize that advisory body meetings are not theaters or a platform for showboating personal agendas, rather to debate, discuss and decide issues based on adopted standards (law, policies, regulations) rather than personal preferences and in no case should persons use their position to bully, intimidate, shutdown or otherwise squelch debate.”

Why not come out and say that?

Otherwise, the policy comes across as an outright ban on disagreements, which sounds awfully close to Big Brotherish censorship.

It’s also a double standard. We found no prohibitions on expressions of anger and disagreement in the City Council’s policy manual, although there is this advice to “Work earnestly to preserve appropriate order and decorum during all meetings. Discourage side conversations, disruptions, interruptions or delaying efforts.”

There’s also this nugget: “Members of advisory bodies are volunteers and should be treated with respect and courtesy.”

The City Council should follow that advice by trusting that its appointees are reasonable adults — not unruly children who need strict rules of behavior.

If the council truly wants a diversity of viewpoints represented on its advisory bodies, it will strike the ridiculous ban on public disagreements.