Can We Disagree Better?

A few months ago, Main Point Monday took a look at the growing challenges surrounding civil discourse in Amarillo's public meetings. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear the conversation is getting any better.

During last week's Parks and Recreation Board meeting, resident Craig Gualtiere addressed board members about conditions at John Ward Park and the city's maintenance efforts. Much of what he discussed reflected concerns many residents have shared over the past several months. Amarillo's parks have struggled this spring, and the city has acknowledged that fact. Just last week, the City announced it had terminated one of its mowing contractors after repeated performance issues and is now using a temporary contractor while city crews work to catch up.

Toward the end of his remarks, however, the discussion took a different turn.

Keep in mind that public comments are limited to three minutes at both Amarillo City Council meetings and meetings of the city's advisory boards and commissions. After Board Member Tom Riney reminded Gualtiere that his allotted time had expired, Gualtiere responded by telling Riney to "piss off." He then walked away, only to return to the microphone and repeat the remark. We've included the meeting video below so you can watch the exchange for yourself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHRSbW55Fw4

The unfortunate part is that the incident overshadowed something else that happened during the same meeting. Parks staff didn't deny there were problems. In fact, they acknowledged them. Staff told the board that department leadership and employees had personally spent evenings mowing parks leading up to the Fourth of July after the contractor was terminated, while the city worked to bring in additional help and recover from weeks of delayed maintenance. The department also provided updates on irrigation repairs, park improvements, new lighting, and ongoing efforts to improve safety and maintenance across the park system.

None of that means residents shouldn't be frustrated. Quite the opposite.

Citizens absolutely should hold their government accountable. Public meetings exist so residents can ask difficult questions, challenge decisions, and push elected officials and staff to do better. That's healthy, and frankly, it's necessary.

But somewhere along the way, it feels like we've started confusing confrontation with effectiveness.

Concerns about civil discourse aren't unique to Amarillo. 

A 2019 Pew Research Center study, which remains one of the most widely cited on the topic, found that 85% of Americans believe public debate has become less respectful and more negative, while 76% say it has become less fact-based. More recently, a 2025 survey by the Reagan Foundation's Center on Civility and Democracy found that 72% of Americans want to help restore civility in the country, and a majority believe differences can be settled without personal attacks.

Social media has only accelerated the trend. Pages like Municipal Minute now spotlight heated moments from city council and board meetings across the country, often generating hundreds of thousands of views. While those clips can increase transparency and public awareness, they can also reward the loudest or most confrontational moments, regardless of whether they move the conversation forward.

So whose responsibility is it to change?

City leaders certainly have a responsibility to listen. Residents have every right to demand better services and better government. But citizens also have a responsibility to engage in a way that encourages dialogue rather than shutting it down. At the end of the day, civil discourse isn't about agreeing with one another. It's about creating an environment where disagreements actually lead to better decisions.