E pluribus unum or "One City with One Future"

I am having trouble with Mayor Waterman's campaign slogan - "One City, One Future."  It would normally just be a throw-away phrase as part of a local campaign, but it is being used to squash dissent and debate.  The administration and the dais have established the ground rules - more like made a fortress - that restricts opportunities for public input.  See the already reported oodles of City Commission work sessions where "consensuses" are agreed upon and the City Manager takes action upon them without the benefit of public input or comment.  How the public is given 2 minutes to express itself on any one of the hundreds of issues that face the city, that aren't already on the agenda, twice a month at regular City Commission meetings.  The public also gets 2 minutes on an agenda item - except items on consent or any presentation when no public comment is allowed (which sometimes can be half of a regular agenda.)  This is perceived by the public as a time when the City Commission has already made up its mind and that anything that is said is whatever is expected by whoever's mouth it comes out of.

It has come to the point that if the Mayor doesn't like the way you button your shirt she can kick you out of the Commission chambers.  If you were to objectively observe who the targets of her ire are, they are never part of her "posse."  Even though many of her "posse" are guilty of disturbing the peace and quiet of the Commission chambers during meetings.

And how about the lack of Commission audio in the hallway City Manager?

Can we get back to E pluribus unum?   "One City, One Future" should read "One City, One and Only One Point of View."  The Mayor's latest refusal to participate in candidate forums shows her lack of openness to ideas other than those of hers, the City Manager's and her posse's.

Let's find ways to engage the public in a meaningful and productive way - I think the defensiveness is breeding more frustration which is going in the wrong direction.