Why did the city’s proposed workplace smoking ban fail?

A particularly crushing blow fell a couple of hours before the City-County Council’s vote Monday night. That’s when Mayor Greg Ballard walked into a closed-door meeting with council Republicans and made clear he didn’t want the ordinance to land on his desk.

Until that point, the mayor had been missing in action from the monthslong debate about the smoking ordinance. He hadn’t shared his views with his constituents or the media. He hadn’t held a news conference or issued a statement on one of the biggest council debates of the year. He hadn’t even met with the ordinance’s authors.

Instead, he played the role of squishy politician, avoiding a stand on the issue as long as he could. Then, in another political move, he tried to influence the outcome in a private meeting — a meeting the mayor’s office confirmed only after sources leaked the news.

John Cochran, one of Ballard’s top advisers, confirmed that the mayor met with fellow Republicans on the 25th floor of the City-County Building just before Monday’s council meeting. The ordinance would have strengthened the existing smoking ban to include bars and the vast majority of workplaces. Ballard told his GOP allies he sensed a political headache.

“He told (council Republicans) he had concerns with the way the ordinance was written, and he would have problems signing it if it got to his desk with the language that was in the proposal,” Cochran said.

To clarify that political-speak, I asked Cochran if Ballard’s words amounted to a veto threat.

Yes, they did, he said.

So why didn’t Ballard say that publicly? Probably because he wants to be seen as a friend of the public health — the guy talking about bike trails and walking trails and a greener city — rather than a cigarette vendor’s best buddy. Plus, by rallying Republican opposition to the ordinance, he saved himself the chore of having to deal with the matter.

Ballard isn’t the first mayor to struggle with the smoking ban. It’s no coincidence that we’re sitting here in 2009 without an adequate anti-smoking law. It’s a tough issue for city leaders; opponents of such bans are vocal, passionate and often politically connected.

But it appears we’re also dealing with a serious lack of political courage and a sad example of backpedaling on a promise.

In 2007, as a candidate for mayor, Ballard said this: “I can assure you that I am a supporter of the smoke-free workplace. Secondhand smoke is a proven health hazard, and I would support any legislation to limit the impact of secondhand smoke.”

He wrote those words in an e-mail to Bruce Hetrick, a local businessman and smoke-free workplace advocate. Back then, when asked about the issue, Ballard was straightforward.

These days, however, we’re learning about the mayor’s thoughts on big issues by investigating the secretive words he delivers at closed-door political meetings. Leaders take a stand, even on controversial measures. The old Greg Ballard, the one who campaigned as the regular guy next door, would have understood that.

How times change.

Cochran said Ballard worries about the ramifications of the ordinance. He said the mayor wanted an exemption for private clubs and a guarantee that the ban would not include private residences.

Private residences?

Now the mayor is just being silly. What’s next? A complaint that the ordinance would create death panels?

As for the exemption for private clubs, that could have been worked out if Ballard had taken a leadership role in the debate. As the vote approached Monday evening, ordinance supporters were ready to accept narrow exemptions — mainly for tobacco stores and private clubs — in order to push the measure into law. An assist from the city’s boss would have made the difference.

Ballard could have been a leader. He could have played a key role in the debate. He could have stood up for the men and women who work in the city’s smoke-filled bars.

Instead, he played politics.