Assembly service requires more than ‘phoning it in’

That the Mat-Su Borough Assembly voted Tuesday to retroactively excuse member Ron Arvin’s months-long absence from the assembly table — he has not attended a single assembly meeting in person since September 2012 — in no way changes our position: we unilaterally oppose rewriting borough code for the benefit of any single individual.

Being an assemblyman is not just a matter of attending meetings and voting. If it were, Arvin’s record of attendance would be stellar. He’s had three absences since September 2011, the same number as his colleague Vern Halter and fewer than Darcie Salmon, who has had four. Warren Keogh attended one meeting by phone. And only Noel Woods has a perfect attendance record during that time.

But assembly members also are expected to attend other meetings. We see them often at community council meetings or at Department of Transportation meetings on road projects in their districts.

Attending these meetings and being a physical presence in the community is invaluable. This boots-on-the-ground aspect of public service also provides a grassroots degree of accountability currently missing. When we encounter our public servants and exchange conversation in the grocery store, at the gas station, or while dining out at a local restaurant, we provide feedback about what’s working and what could use improvement. But participating over the phone omits this facet of accountability and service.

One borough resident testified at the Tuesday meeting about a few other ways Arvin’s lack of physical attendance impedes his ability to serve.

“Mr. Arvin, when you speak up, you are well spoken. But honestly, right now sir, I can’t tell if you’re there. How full would you say, sir, that the public audience is at this meeting? Sir, I cannot tell right now if you’ve put down the phone and are taking a restroom break, if you’re alone or you’re with someone else, whether you’re playing Angry Birds or whether you have muted your phone and are surfing the Internet.”

In short, it’s a transparency issue. When our elected officials govern from afar that governance is less transparent and less accountable. Transparent, local control and accountability are the foundation that underpins our local, state and national governments.

While we often do not agree with Arvin’s policy positions, we know him to be among the most well informed members of the assembly. But that said, we think the commitment he made to serve on the assembly runs much deeper than telephonic attendance and decision-making.

While we can’t prevent taxpayer money from being spent on recall elections or lawsuits to clarify the borough code in this matter, we would prefer instead that Arvin repent and seek redemption from borough residents by returning home and devoting himself — in person — to fulfilling the duties he was hired and is paid a salary by voters to perform.

While the assembly gave Arvin an excuse for his absence from September 2012 to present, if he plans to continue to only “phone it in,” we think he should do the right thing — step down and allow another to serve who is committed and able to be physically present at the assembly table throughout their term.