George Orwell’s blood would turn cold inside a Natchez Board of Aldermen meeting.

Orwell’s novel “Nineteen Eighty-Four” features — among other things — the Thought Police.

The Gestapo-like group sought to find and eliminate people who even thought of challenging the authority of those in power.

And, while the Natchez aldermen certainly are not at Orwell’s fear level yet, hints of an anti-utopian city hall state certainly seem evident.

Several weeks ago, a good source overheard evidence that Big Brother (aka, at least one alderman) had his sights set on someone who regularly expressed their personal opinion on a Web site.

One alderman was overheard — through the closed door of an executive session meeting — yelling that something needed to be done about this person. Mind you, the person being discussed wasn’t even a city employee.

Anyone who runs for public office should have the common sense to realize that it can be a thankless job sometimes.

Critics are everywhere, especially when decisions are controversial. And Lord knows the current administration has handled (or in some cases mishandled) a number of controversial issues recently.

Yet, rather than simply working on doing what is right for the city and working with the best intentions of the taxpayers in mind, one alderman became fixated on “doing something” about a citizen who dared to be critical of the city’s leadership.

Good grief.

Freedom of speech is among our most important individual rights, protected in America by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Having the government work behind closed doors to hush up someone who is willing to stand up and question the government certainly reeks of Orwellian fears.

Perhaps that was just an isolated incident, a personal dispute between one alderman and one citizen.

Or perhaps it shows a growing resentment on the part of some of the aldermen to have their actions questioned.

Fear of other differing opinions can quickly become paranoia.

Interestingly last week, the aldermen took another step in the direction of control, voting to ask the city attorney to consider a new personnel policy.

Its intent would be to restrict city department heads from speaking on behalf of the city about issues. Presumably the concern is a department head’s opinion may be different than that of the board, Big Brother.

The proposed ordinance stemmed from comments made last month by Tourism Director Walter Tipton who expressed concern over how the look of a potential new prison may affect tourism.

Tipton spoke at a public hearing of the county board of supervisors. Just because Tipton holds a title within the city doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be allowed to express his opinion. Besides, isn’t Tipton paid to be the person who is looking out for how things affect, or may affect, tourism?

If Tipton had stood up and spouted that the City of Natchez was vehemently opposed to a prison coming to the area, that’s one thing.

But simply expressing his opinion as a taxpayer or as someone looking out for tourism (his job) is something different entirely.

Leaders who start curtailing the ability of their mid-level managers to speak freely show a lack of confidence in their workers and in themselves.

Most good leaders want managers — in the case of the city, department heads — who can speak freely and represent them well.

Attempting to mute the opinions of smart department heads will eventually chase them off. If that happens, the city will wind up with people who are not the best and the brightest, but rather the rest and the quietest.

Such a forced, homogenous view of public issues would be enough to make even Orwell shiver a bit.

Kevin Cooper is associate publisher of The Natchez Democrat. He can be reached at 601-445-3539 or kevin.cooper@natchezdemocrat.com.