Borough Council concluded an intense, personal, and confusing three-week debate on a set of guidelines proposed by member Catherine Dauler Wednesday by tabling its vote and discussion on it.

When she first passed around her list of guidelines at Council’s special meeting on October 25, Dauler said that it contained “suggested guidelines that Council could look over and that [Council] could agree on or disagree on.” She said that she hoped the list would allow Council to “be consistent in what it is [it] was focused on.”

The proposed guidelines were:

• Actual work experience in local government
• Willingness to commit to Robert’s Rules of Order
• Demonstrable experience conducting public meetings
• Understanding the position is for two (2) years only and nonrenewable
• Candidate cannot be an active Penn State employee
• Commitment to active involvement in the National League of Cities and the Pennsylvania Municipal league
• Cannot be a developer
• Supports the Coalition of Neighborhood Associations
• Commitment to Penn State student engagement

Dauler’s effort was well-meaning, but disorganized and poorly applied. The list, which reads like a set of requirements, although Dauler and Council Member Janet Engeman have repeatedly insisted that it contains merely suggestions, was perceived by several members as discriminatory. It notably excludes potential candidates based on their place of employment, and by calling for previous local government experience, Council members argued, it excludes many communities of color that are already underrepresented in local government.

There are many issues that the list itself and the debate surrounding it have brought to light. But first and foremost is the question of why these guidelines, which cannot legally affect the requirements of running for mayor as outlined in the Borough’s Home Rule Charter, were discussed for so long and proposed in the first place.

Dauler and Engeman said Wednesday that they didn’t expect these guidelines to be voted upon, and that they only represent suggestions for Council to follow when choosing a candidate. Instead, as former mayor Don Hahn pointed out in a letter, they threatened to introduce a pseudo-list of requirements that would discourage potential, eligible candidates from submitting a letter of interest. Dauler went back on the Penn State requirement after Hahn officially disagreed with it in his letter.

Dauler said she never expected to vote on the guidelines on Wednesday, but that sentiment was absent from prior meetings when voting was discussed and voting meetings were scheduled. How can Council “agree or disagree” upon a set of guidelines without some kind of vote, even if it is informal?

This aspect of the guideline catastrophe is a direct result of a failure to outline exactly what the list was and what it could and couldn’t do. Unfortunately, that’s not where Council’s shortcomings in dealing with the guideline situation ends.

Council Members Theresa Lafer and David J. Brown were quick to criticize the tone that the debate had taken. Both Lafer and Brown addressed legitimate concerns of a potential conflict of interest that could arise if a Penn State decision-maker were to hold significant power in local government. They alluded to councilman Dan Murphy’s stern disagreement with the Penn State guideline, and his pointing out the discriminatory nature of the list itself. Lafer rightly emphasized the advantages incumbents have in elections, and said that Council should do its best to choose a mayor that would not seek reelection.

But they seemed especially concerned about audience members snapping after points were made by Murphy and community members in attendance at last week’s special meeting.

Brown said the discussion had been “hijacked” by “grandstanding opportunists rearing up with righteous, fierce, self-righteous indignation and, by the way, rallying a cadre of clapping and snapping collaborators.”

“People stood up last week and attacked people on this Council ad hominem, personalities,” Lafer said. “I don’t care how you sit in the audience. I do care if you play ‘snap snap.’ This isn’t a goddamn comedy club, this is serious business.

“You wanna go ‘snap snap?’ I’m certain Elaine has some nice comedians down there for you to enjoy. This isn’t the place for it. I work in disability services. Some behaviors are unacceptable, inappropriate.”

Lafer was quick to call out ad hominem attacks on personalities, but must have forgotten her own misguided use of personal identities to make a point.

“I bent over backward over a decade ago to get us a student representative. We not only have a student representative. We have a black woman student representative,” she said, referring to Borough Council Student Representative Genevievre Miller at last week’s special meeting.

Miller was quick to respond.

“I find it incredibly, incredibly, incredibly offensive that my being here, and that I so happen to be a woman, and I so happen to be a person of color has anything to do with the Borough’s diversity and inclusion initiatives,” she said. “I did this on my own, not because of you.”

When College Democrats president Kelsey Denny urged Lafer to apologize for her careless comments, Lafer interrupted Denny’s speaking time to say “If she is upset, she can come to me,” seemingly shirking the emphasis on Council procedure that later led her to criticize the snapping.

Then, this Wednesday, Lafer commented on those who said that the guidelines were discriminatory.

“The people who jump up and down screaming, ‘oh you’ve turned me into a victim!’ should be ashamed of themselves,” she said.

“You don’t want to be a victim, don’t stand up and say ‘You made me a victim!’ We can all pull that card. I’m old, so everybody is mad at me because I’m old and therefore I don’t know anything about what you’re going through because I must be demented and can’t remember my college years.”

The problem in Lafer’s arguments lies not in the fact that she considers herself to be “old.” The problem lies in her unhelpful comments that do not contribute to Council’s purpose of protecting and improving the Borough for every member of its community. Even more disturbing is her seeming refusal to critically examine her own convictions or actions, even when confronted by multiple people in a public forum.

“This is not personal. This is community,” Lafer later said.

But what is community, if not a collaborative effort intent on improving or protecting the lives and wellbeing of each of its individual members?

Lafer and the rest of Council’s commitment to acting in favor of what they perceive to be the best interest of the Borough is unquestionable. I don’t believe that Lafer, Dauler, or any other Council member’s creation or support of the guidelines were born from a desire, as one community member suggested Wednesday, to disenfranchise specific groups of community members.

But their comments, disorganized proposals, and the debate itself showed that Council needs to act carefully and critically to ensure that its mission applies to each individual in the community its members swore to serve.