One of the more hallowed traditions of (some) US Army commands is that when a group of officers are in a meeting and the time comes to talk about recommendations or make decisions, the discussion begins with the most junior officer at the table.

The reasoning is obvious: it is a rare Lieutenant who will offer a contrary opinion to that of a Colonel, and few Captains will suggest different strategies or tactics after a General has opined.

Few elected members of a City Council seem to understand this. Many—most?—council members think they should speak often, loudly and, on occasion, boldly.

City halls are a hot-bed of bureaucracy. It is the nature of that beast. And most of the same hierarchal principles in an army also apply in a municipal government. It would take a very bold junior planner to attack a city councillor's views on some rezoning application, or a young staffer to challenge an elected official's position on HR issues or other city hall policies.

Even senior managers and department heads are reluctant to call-out elected members. If you have ever watched a writhing city solicitor try very, very hard to gently correct a council member's position (likely because it would be against the law) you get the concept.

It is clearly understood inside city halls that the ultimate boss' is City Council. And that is as it should be. But that doesn't necessarily make elected people the smartest ones in the room.

The larger issue is how to arrive at the best policy decision or bylaw. A vigorous and open discussion can often improve resolutions and recommendations—and that is the whole point of starting with the junior people first and working the group's way up to the senior staff.

Many elected people want to hear themselves speak—first and often. That may not always produce the most effective civic policies or strategies.

Who speaks first sometimes sways the rest of the discussion. I recall meetings when Council had to appoint someone to a board or commission. And often the person who got the first nomination out there won the day, simply because some other councillors were reluctant to get into controversy.

But that is also a different discussion than policy-making or a debate concerning a recommendation going to council for approval. That is the time when a variety of views, even some contrary ones, can be most effective. Sometimes a challenge to a person's views is neither negative nor mean; they can simply offer a different perspective or a new angle. That can be when a junior person at the table can make an important contribution. And that is the reason that some smart Army officers ask the lieutenants first.

That same open thinking could help a lot of city hall discussions. But to achieve that, the elected leaders have to be secure in their own skins and ensure that there is no retribution for a staff person offering that contrary thinking.

And sometimes managers and department heads need to step up their own games. Part of their responsibility is to protect their own staff from unfair attacks. They also do other important things like getting good civic policies passed and keeping elected officials out of jail. When that means speaking up or even against elected an official's view, then that courage is required.

There should be no fear of retribution from an open and honest dialogue. And sometimes that means opposing points of view, some of which are held fiercely. That's fine—as long as at the end of the debate you can still go out for a beer with your colleagues.

Many issues are big and tough these days. But getting informed opinion and ideas from smart young people at city hall can be a really useful source of critical thinking for elected officials. That shows strength by councillors, not weakness.