I tried to make this clear in a previous column, but I could have done better. The recent voicemail scandal at Evanston City Hall had little to do with the actual voicemail itself; it was about, what I and many believe, the poor response to it and the act of trying to hush citizens. Obviously, many disagree, as well.

Now that Evanston resident Gina Sundquist, after undue delay, has been able to address the city council concerning the lack of air conditioning at the Machine Shop — which was all she ever wanted in the first place — I think we should move on.

I don’t mean move on to some other topic. I don’t mean let Sundquist express her concerns and her ideas to solve the problem and move on. She plans to keep bringing up the topic and to keep working on solutions — what an asset she is to our community.

I don’t mean forget about recent public behavior or forget that the process to be able to speak to the city council appears to be majorly flawed. And I don’t mean that we should ignore allegations of public meeting violations — or actual illegal meetings — when they take place.

But none of this was ever personal, and it is, by far, in the best interest of the community to look forward and move forward. We would have chosen to report the same way had it been any high-ranking city official disparaging any single citizen if that citizen felt they’d been wronged and then brushed aside. And while that, I believe, affects every single citizen, I never believed anyone should lose their job over this alone, and I’m grateful no one has.

That said, I can’t ignore Evanston City Attorney Mark Harris’ recent antics. He held a “press conference” in a nearly-empty room to — in my opinion — pull a stunt on Facebook. It probably worked. I haven’t checked because I realize social media is usually just a cesspool of rage and discontent.

Harris had the gall to gripe about the Herald spreading “misinformation” or “disinformation” because we initially reported that four members of the city council “voted” in favor of “no confidence” in Mayor Kent Williams.

Well, I feel confident saying no one in that room new 100% what had happened after Evanston City Councilmember Jesse Lind read a rebuking letter that ended with, “Due to the Mayor’s actions … we motion for a vote of no confidence against the Mayor.” That was followed by four councilmembers agreeing with the letter and two seemingly disagreeing after being caught off guard.

I reached out to Harris, who, instead of answering my questions in any real way, was snarky. I’ve been snarky recently, too. I regret it, and I hope Harris does.

I also reached out to Mayor Kent Williams, who was equally snarky and said he didn’t want to comment on Lind’s action.

I used the word “vote” in each of those emails, all the while working with our own attorney, to try to figure out exactly what had happened. He said such a vote doesn’t mean much other than a reprimand — which we included in our initial report. We later found out there was no official vote, but the sentiment of it all — and lack of teeth — remained the same.

So, both Harris and Williams sat back and watched us make that mistake — a mistake that, in the end, is miniscule. Vote or no vote, it means the same.

Then Harris held his silly press conference and wrote a letter that we ran last week, harshly criticizing the paper and reporter Kayne Pyatt’s recent opinion column saying city officials need to take historic preservation more seriously.

I stand by Kayne and her reporting 100%, and she has my full trust, along with the trust of our readers and community members. She does a fantastic job reporting, and I’m so grateful that, at 82 years old, she chooses to continue her service to this community.

I liked Kayne’s column a lot, but I should have been more diligent, like Harris suggested, in seeking his comment. She has triple-checked with her sources for that column and they stand by their statements.

Harris disagreed about some of the details but none of them change the overall sentiment of what’s happened. And let’s remember, this was an opinion column — clearly marked on our Viewpoints page — not a news story.

I’m not going to respond to each of Harris’ complaints, because I find most of them to be invalid or simply his own opinion, which he certainly has the right to have, and which was previously printed in this very paper.

I’ll leave it at this: Harris and Williams have not been super-cooperative with the paper recently. Some people who demonize the media think that’s somehow “patriotic.” What it really is is harmful to our community.

Williams has agreed to do better, as have I. Harris told me he’ll make himself available when we have questions about meetings or procedures; I appreciate that, and I believe he’ll do better, too.