As has been alluded to in a previous post, the true level of influence and indeed control that staff has in any municipality compared to the elected Council is worth noting when we debate how various policies have evolved or how information is presented for public analysis.
Yesterday Bob Greenlee, a 16-year member of Boulder's City Council and former Mayor made this point in an article about Boulder's special election: "One thing all council members will eventually learn is that the council doesn't actually run the city at all. The staff does. A bevy of outside paid consultants are also there to help sway outcomes."
How about creating a directly-voted-upon Mayoral position, with city staff reporting to the Mayor? Is the design of City Managers keeping the distance between staff and elected officials too far apart?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Dan, of course Greenlee is correct.
For the most part, lay people elected to city government are just that, lay people. They are also part timers, many with full time jobs as well. So those new to government tend to rely on the so called "experts" for advise and recommendations. When I attend the Colorado Municipal Leagues's annual convention for city and town elected officials, those from other cities confirmed this.
So there is a high reliance on the city full time manager and department heads. They supposedly are professionals, experts in the field, and provide institutional memory and transition as council's change.
The city manager reports to the council. There are also legal reasons why the staff does not report directly to elected folks.
But, and this is a big but, the staff also have their personal agendas and may or may not have the level of expertise a lay person thinks they have. But to figure that out, one has to have enough expertise to ask the right questions and do a lot of homework.
So here is a simple example. When Lafayette City Council receives a staff recommendation, it is rarely a staff recommendation. It is a department head recommendation. It may or may not have the support of the city manager.
If one has had staffs of this level, you learn how the game is played. If you never have had one, good luck.
Not sure how having staff report to a directly elected Mayor would change anything. Staff puts up with elected officials knowing full well they will be gone soon. This wouldn't change if the head of the city administration was elected.
Staff "educates" elected officials based on their own agendas and preferences. Without doing their homework, elected officials usually won't get both sides of an argument.
The real work gets done at the lowest level in any organization. This work wouldn't change, regardless of who's in charge.
Information flow will be whatever is necessary for job preservation, or to promote pet projects. Unless somebody calls them on it.
Pretty much as it is now.
So what a Council essentially should presume to do is set policies and goals with a clear set of expected outcomes, and let staff figure out how to pull it off legally, financially and mechanically. A council should have deadlines or some other metrics by which to judge staff's performance, and the guts to shuffle, fire or "downsize" when things are ignored, flubbed up or otherwise back-burnered in contradiction to Council direction.
So that's my theory; where does it go wrong in implementation?
First guess: when Councils give conflicting directives to please factions of Councilors, or when brilliant ideas are all approved with no way to pay for them all - or no way for staff to physically pursue them all - at the same time. This is most likely to happen when single-issue candidates get elected. The mindset is what's good for me in my town, not what's good for my town in general.
In Lafayette, the city administrator reports to the council. The city code limits council access to any staff member. (S)he is the only city employee that can be hired or fired by the council.
When a proposed policy is put on the table, the staff is usually requested to research it and respond with the "facts" Of course, the question is is the response factually and un-biased. That can vary all over the place. To challenge that varies as to the knowledge, experience, and persevance of a council member(s).
Then it takes 4 of 7 to approve the policy. The votes can be based on the facts on the table, which may or may not have come from the staff, or simply the views of each council member. It also can vary based on what the majority considers what the priorities are.
As for the money, the city has a budget structure that is complex and hard to challenge. So key info is not reported or easy to find in the city budget book or financial reports. The previous council had the staff opposed several items based on money but we knew where to find it and make the trade-offs. Not so much currently.
Lots of inertia in city government. That can be expected as councils change every two years.
Dan, your theory is exactly how it should work.
Here's another opinion on why it doesn't.
Many Council, or Board of Trustee (Erie), members are elected with the belief they are mandated to somehow make a difference.
Well intentioned Councilors(Trustees)think the way to make a difference is to micromanage staff. As if all previous Councils, or Boards, had not properly managed staff, and now it's time to fix it.
These would be the Councilors(Trustees) who typically have no management experience, or shall I say successful management experience. (I've known many with several years of supposed experience, but they still don't know how to manage. To be fair, there are some who are natural born managers and know instinctively not to micromanage.)
Voters are not expecting Council to manage the town. At a basic level, they really just don't want Council to screw it up.
So, managing the town should be left to those hired to do so. Councils, or Boards, should be left to defining policy, settiing direction and goals, etc.
Put the menu together, but leave the cooking to the chefs. Stay out of the kitchen.
As an example, Lafayette Council was supposedly given only 3 days to review the WalMart deal. That should've been enough time to review staff's work, but only if town staff had proper direction on how to draft an agreement. Needing more than 3 days to review staff's work implies micromanaging.
Staff won't say it out loud where non-staff could hear, but they really hate the day to day interference. They know how the game is played, and that the players will change in short order, so they put up with it. They're OK with Councilors who sincerely try to understand the issues. But, too many times it just comes across as meddling.
d-b,
I have been in earshot of our city staff so the comments they make are quite interesting. They are instructed on fear of reprimand to always address council members by the title Councilor and show the utmost respect. Even to show interest. And there is staff who hope just bide their time until a new council appears.
What is funny at council meetings that staff has to attend is that they spend their time catching up on paperwork or reading industry rags. They aren't on camera.
However, I will disagree that a $2.4M W*M deal that is sent out on a Thursday night with no prior notice merits only 3 days, especially since the Tuesday of the council meeting is a dead day (staff meeting all a.m.). No time for going back and forth. That should have taken up at least a 2 hour workshop. Plus the staff report that was issued prior was not in line with the actual proposed contract.
And yet almost exactly like the EDA proposal that the council approved unanimously nearly 10 months before, right after Christmas in an emergency meeting. The only difference being the final numbers. Surely 10 months was enough time to raise issues?
d-b,
Councilor Cameron'S remarks reflect how the staff is running the show.
The negotiating points were reviewed in executive session. However, by law, the council cannot approve any thing in closed session. All decisions must be in a public forum.
What she is referring to is a staff memo which I think is public. But the actual contract terms which were voted on 10 months later is not in line with the staff memo. During those 10 months, the council was not consulted or involved in the negotiations.
The surprise was how different the structure was from the King Soopers deal. And there was no input from staff as to how the terms would work in the real world, which is what analysis is all about. That's why it barely passed 4-3.
King Soopers told me they were told W*M is going to open August 8th. The council has yet to be informed as a date.
Lastly, take a look at DC today and the latest on the sales activity around the current W*M building. I read the one "proposal" refered to. It's not even that.
If Council gave direction, and staff followed that direction, the final outcome is whatever it is. Just because it barely passed doesn’t mean there were problems with the process.
Since the majority of the Councilors approved the deal, perhaps (just guessing here) the majority believe staff did their job.
The question is not do you agree with staff's recommendation, but, did they follow Council's instructions on keeping Council in the loop? If they followed instructions, they did their job. Doesn't matter if you agree with the outcome. The question is - was the process followed?
Why does Council need to know the opening date? What does Council have to do with the opening? You did your job by approving the deal. I see this comment as an indication of the micromanaging I was talking about.
D-B,
Your question was what the process was? The council was not kept in the loop. The term sheet was not followed. There was no exec session to inform the CC as to what was going on. The only time from my experience.
The reason the August 8 date is pertinent is that the CO for the W*M opening is contingent on the modifications to Baseline Road. Those haven't been started yet.
I was informed today that those changes may not happen in time. I guess two years isn't enough. A problem with Qwest.
So now the city will have to provide some sort of traffic mitigation for Baseline and Aspen Ridge, across from Caria. Also the road improvements could happen after the store opens. Gridlock central. Especially if KS runs counter promotions at the same time.
The Baseline/Caria is listed as the one of the two most problematic intersections in the city. Now this is happening.
Monitoring the progress of a contract is not micro managing. I raised the issue 3 months ago. Public safety is the issue.
Still missing the point.
I didn't say the Aug 8 date had NO significance. I asked why Council needed to know the date. Council doesn't issue the CO.
It depends on your definition of "monitoring the progress of a contract" as to whether that's micromanaging or not. Experience tells me micromanagers typically won't admit they're doing it. They falsely believe they're doing what they're supposed to be doing.
Now, about the fiasco of a lighted intersection at every corner in that part of town. This I do blame on Council, not staff, and not the current Council. It's the result of really poor long range planning that goes back many years.
I understand the need for the lights, I have to navigate through there too. But, there are too many cross streets too close together. Lafayette should've learned it's lesson from So. Boulder Rd. where the same thing happened. 7 lighted intersections from So. Public to Centaur Dr. - approx 1 mile. Ridiculous.
d-b,
I wanted to know the date since I had asked when the traffic mitigation was going to be completed. Had to get the date from the King Soopers manager.
The intersect at Caria/Baseline had been listed as a problem way back in 2001. Then the city did not ask for W*M to contribute paying for any lights there from W*M. The police and public works signed off on W*M. I missed it at the time. So the city is going to be proposing borrowing the money to pay for the lights ($250,000 plus interest over 10 years). Around $400,000 of sales tax revenue.
That problem led to the past feud over a housing development which resulted in the city buying what is now Thomas Open Space.
So if you ask how the staff is doing, that's the background. I wanted to know the date to see if W*M was going to be let off the hook since nothing was going on on Baseline. One of my "jobs" is to monitor staff performance which includes planning. Looks like it wasn't very good on this one. These mistakes get pretty expensive. Council members have a fiduciary duty after all.
Dan & DB, I concur with your comments. There is no big mystery or conspiracy to any of this. Council is ultimately the check and balance to staff. The process breaks down if the electorate (ie. all of us) does not carefully choose their city council or Board. FUD is no way to run a city, or to motivate a city staff to give their best.
Post a Comment