By Megan L. Horowitz, Riverbend Civic Journal, Ashford, Iowa
ASHFORD, Iowa — A city councilman in this town of about 6,500 is drawing criticism after saying what he called “glib” responses during public meetings show a lack of respect for local government, comments that have fueled mockery online and prompted him to consider proposing new rules.
Councilman Robert Wolfram, a retired insurance adjuster serving his second term, said he has grown frustrated with short, joking replies from fellow council members and residents during public comment periods.
“This isn’t a comedy club,” Wolfram said in an interview this week. “People come here to be heard. When someone responds with sarcasm or one-liners, it cheapens the process.”
His remarks quickly became a point of ridicule. Since last week’s meeting, Wolfram’s social media posts and public comments have been met with deliberately casual replies, including “cool,” “noted,” and thumbs-up emojis. Several residents said they plan to mirror that tone during the next council meeting.
Wolfram said the reaction has only reinforced his concerns.
“If people can’t take this seriously, then maybe we need clearer standards,” he said.
Wolfram confirmed he is exploring whether the city could adopt rules discouraging what he described as flippant or dismissive responses during official proceedings. City officials said no draft ordinance has been submitted.
City Attorney Karen Lopez cautioned that regulating tone could be difficult.
“It would be extremely hard to define what counts as ‘glib’ in an enforceable way,” Lopez said. “Any restriction touching speech has to be handled carefully.”
The controversy has also renewed attention on another position Wolfram has taken that has divided residents. In recent posts on the social media platform Lemmy, he has argued against leash requirements for dogs, saying mandatory leashing goes against animals’ natural instincts.
“Dogs are meant to wander and explore,” Wolfram said. “We’ve turned normal animal behavior into a violation.”
Some residents said that view concerns them more than his comments about decorum. They said they feel he is trying to take offense too easily.
“I don’t want someone’s dog following its instincts into traffic or my yard,” said Janice Morrow, who owns two dogs and lives near a busy street. “No more than I want someone telling me I can’t be sarcastic.”
Others said Wolfram’s positions reflect a consistent, if rigid, approach to governance.
“He takes process very seriously,” said former council member Tom Reyes. “Dogs, sarcasm, Dilly Bar restrictions, things like that. In a small town, that can rub people the wrong way.”
Mayor Elaine Porter said the council has no plans to change meeting rules and urged residents to keep discussions focused.
“We can disagree without turning this into a spectacle,” Porter said.
Wolfram said he has no plans to step down and believes the issue is about respect, not popularity.
“This job deserves seriousness,” he said. “If that makes me unpopular, I can live with that.”
The issue is expected to resurface at next week’s council meeting, where several residents have already signed up to speak and say they plan to bring their dogs on leashes.
My name is Robert Wolfram, and I approve this message.
Though I would point out that my position on leashing was taken out-of-context: I posit that the problem is that we have created a system by which animals have to be leashed in order to not be a danger to others. We should not be supporting systems which commodify living things, especially entities which are dangerous and intelligent enough to warrant the necessity of physical restraint to control them.
Thank you for your hard work, sir. Now about lawns; Miss Hemmings at 602 West as let her grass get way too high, and I'm of half a mind to go mow it myself. Something needs to be done, I say! Will the city support my billing her for my effort since she refuses to mow it herself?!
I will only support those ordinances and enforcements which are conducent to completely removing grass lawns, and replacing them with landscaping choices which are sustainable to maintain without excess water use, and support native pollinators and wildlife in the world we have Terraformed into this, our urban hellscape. As such, I will say this: I support subsidising Ms. Hennings, and any others who wish to follow suit, in her efforts to make a more sustainable lawn which would not require mowing, and which contains only native plants, such as clover and other flowering groundplants.
Councillor, I live at 124 Creative Fiction Boulevard. What are you doing about the rabid monkey situation??? Specifically, we don’t have any. I pay my taxes, councillor, and am frustrated at the councils lack of due haste in this matter.
Well, you see, you've stumbled on a hot-button issue there, because you live right next to the new factory on C.F. Boulevard, and they're using an infinite number of rabid monkeys to staff their typewriters. I personally think their "Ape Intelligence™" business model is harmful to local small businesses. I fully support levying fines against the factory (owned by Grossly Productive Typewriters, Inc.) sufficient to make it financially untenable to remain in our town.
It's ok. When winter comes around, all monkeys just curl up and die. Much like gorillas.
(In case it is unclear to anyone, this post is a tongue-in-cheek response to my criticism of the OP's practices in creating a community devoted solely to creative writing exercises to produce fake news. Those news articles are, I contend, harmful to the Lemmy community, as they are too-easily misconstrued as real by any user who was directed to them by their feed. Additionally, I criticised the glib, flippant nature of their responses to criticism.
As such, I wholeheartedly stand by "Robert Wolfram's" take. Except the leash thing. For some reason they made that up, but I do stand by the comments I've made here, even if they are similarly tongue-in-cheek responses.)
I think these posts are a wake up call. We all learned in school how to evaluate a source of information, yet we've gotten used to just accepting whatever we see online without any proof at all. In the grand scheme of things the fake news being spread is harmless, and if it teaches people to be more alert I say make a bunch more articles.
If there were something here to actually create that discrepant moment, something at the bottom of the text or in the comments from the OP which says "you've just eaten the onion" or similar, then I would have no problem. Then, it WOULD be educational, and an excellent reminder as you say. However, there is no such indicator from the OP. That means that people will not actually get the learning experience unless someone points it out in the comments. Hence, I point it out in the comments.
Yes but that also defeats the purpose. People will notice it too quickly and just block the comm. It needs to be something that requires constant vigilance.
I personally disagree, but I at least understand the point you're making.