In Lafayette's November City Council election, Councilor Kerry Bensman has told the Lafayette News the removal of City Administrator Gary Klaphake is a key part of his campaign message. Kerry is a stickler for details and he has been dissatisfied with the staff for years. Is this a viable campaign message?
I don't think most people associate municipal performance issues with the top administrator, they comment about their elected Council. The "throw the bums out" angle works on elected officials, not on bureaucrats. As a voter I look to hear about a candidate's leadership, vision, passion, etc. Big picture stuff, not personal rancor.
Mostly I'm surprised this is a newspaper article at all. "Incumbent says voters want change" is the subtitle - can you run on change as an incumbent? Seems more like an editorial. I won't put too much weight into any given quote because I known how that works, but to say “This is an opportunity for voters to send a message to city hall,” means Kerry believes what I have agreed to on this blog earlier- that staff holds the true power in a community. But I don't think that message resonates with voters. More cynically, I don't think people want to hear descriptions of the problems, they want to be told the solutions they want to hear (whether they're truly feasible doesn't matter). Personnel matters are off most people's radar.
Kerry is tenacious and studious regarding the city's finances, and he raises numerous questions about how information and decisions filter from staff to Council. I am still likely to vote for him again as his detailed and watchful eye is necessary and far too often missing part of Council. But the personal vendetta angle is troubling.
I'm sure this will be an interesting conversation here...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Dan,
I do hope that your bloggers weigh in on this one. The campaign is 3 months long and there will be lots of time to clarify messages to the voter.
Your term "personal vendetta" is quite puzzling and yet you voice your disappointment at the city staff. We're talking about public policy here and the performance of the city government.
The city administrator serves at the pleasure of the city council. He is responsible for the performance of the city government, especially the city department heads and all employees. Even the Lafayette News survey identifed him as the most influential person in town.
There are lots of voters in Lafayette who believe the city government has failed them or is failing them. They also recognize how the city administration not only drives its own agenda but treats them with disrepect. Not all citizen interaction takes place in front of the council. I hear from a lot of those voters.
The city council is made up of 7 members. It takes 4 to make policy. It takes at least 4 "watchdogs". We don't have that today. One is not enough, especially when the staff refutes the issue and a few months later implements that very suggestion.
Drive over to W. Baseline and 287.
W*M did install the traffic mitigation despite the city saying it wasn't necessary before the store opening. More puzzling is the traffic lanes are changed which to me is now a bigger problem now. No one told the council about that.
And the stories I could tell as to what really goes on would truly be unbelievable. You would be interested in the internal subterfuge that resulted in Eagles Place. Or the faulty accounting of the Open Space tex revenue. But that is for another time.
I will be holding petition signing event at the Bob Burger Recreation Center from 4 P.M. to 9 P.M. this Thursday, August 9th.
Thanks for the support.
This is a viable campaign message, particularly for towns with the government structure similar to Lafayette's, where the town is run by the City Administrator.
You can believe City Council runs the town if you wish. But it's not reality.
As I've written on this blog before, city admins know the council will change every few years, so they tolerate the intrusion of councilors on their daily routine. Within the walls of city hall, administrators chuckle as councilors wrangle over issues. On the surface, they're responsive to Council requests, but internally it's tolerated like a crazy uncle in the family.
Major direction changes rarely occur, unless the City Administrator is changed. Even then, it's difficult for a new City Administrator to make changes. He/she must have full backing of the council to effect changes within City Hall, because the backlash will be heavy. Bureaucracy by definition does not change easily.
A strong City Administrator can set a very powerful, positive tone in the city. A strong City Administrator is proactive with City Council. He/she is active in all segments of the community, actively seeking and receiving feedback from constituents, and thus has a good feel for what the citizens need and want. He/she has a clear vision of the town's goals. He/she proposes new items for discussion that stretch the town's vision. He/she is an active executive manager of other top positions in the city, such as Police Chief, and Finance Manager, assuring a high level of integrity and performance. And most importantly, he/she develops a strong communication link with all council members.
A meek, mild career bureaucrat, on the other hand, is afraid to be proactive because it might cost him/her their job. They generally don't have a firm conviction about anything, other than job preservation. Consequently, these city administrators tend to be reactive, instead of proactive. Department heads, such as Police Chief and Finance Manager, do their own thing with minimal supervision. City Councils are considered an irritant and a minimal amount of effort is exerted to include council in city matters. Communication is not open, these admins are cloaked in secrecy, half truths, and sometimes outright lies.
Any small town does itself a huge favor when it brings in an extremely strong City Administrator. The history of EastBoCo includes several strong Administrators who left their permanent stamp on the area.
Since this is where the real power lies in small town government, this is fair game during elections.
Dok- You lay out a good definition of a strong City Administrator. Where do you think Mr. Klaphake, lies on the spectrum? I would agree that he is a powerful influence on Council, staff and how things proceed for the city. I know there are many things that have happened in Lafayette, that wouold not have happened, had he not been there to guide all of the different players through it. He certainly isn't just collecting a paycheck, he's working for it. The big question for you is, is he doing a good job, and meeting your criteria? Sounds like he doesn't meet Kerry's criteria. I'd really like to hear what Kerry would like to have in a City Administrator? Or do you just want to shake things up?
Overall, I'm not impressed. But I hear different things on Klaphake. Seems to me it comes down to whether or not he's been responsive to your specific need.
Some negative feedback I've heard is along the lines of lack of strong leadership. You can be an effective bureaucrat, but not necessarily a strong leader.
Using our behemoth neighbor Denver as an example. It's like comparing Wellington Webb with Hickenlooper. Webb was the consumate bureaucrat. Hickenlooper is no bureaucrat, but is an extremely strong leader. Who accomplished more for Denver? Probably depends on your point of view, and how you were impacted directly.
If this becomes an election issue, voters will have to decide which of the two styles they want.
To the recently posted comments, ask yourself the question as to why would I "just want to shake things up?"
It may or not surprise you but a council member can simply show up at the council meetings twice a month, vote with the staff recommendation, say something during the council reports, and never read a thing as to what is on the agenda. Some do and some may have from the stories I hear.
Normally incumbents are a shoo in and I get paid $400 a month. I'd like to think it would be a breeze with minimal campaigning and fund raising required. After all I have enough notoriety that voters know who I am and what I stand for, especially those who have either come to the council meetings or communicating by e-mail. They also know who I have worked with and what I have taken the lead on.
For those of you who don't know, the city administrator sought another job several years ago and my sources tell me he had his eyes on a job in November, 2006.
At least LN used a better picture of me this time.
It's a good question Kerry? You are already a Council member. Why not make like Nike and just do it? I agree about how members can just show up and not do the homework, and with the speed at which some motions pass, this is clear. I know you do your homework. Why Gary? It sounds like you are trying to make a point. Top down shake up? New blood to clean house? I would be willing to listen, if this is the case. Just want to know what you think this will do to change what you see as internal problems at City Hall. Also, if you could be more clear about the OS funding mismanagement that would help also. It's not fair to elude to things you know and leave others hanging. With 4 seats up for grabs, you could help guide the types of people to the open seats that are needed for change.
Cyclo,
Right now I have to get my petition signed. Then after Labor Day, the campaign begins. Three former council members have verbally agreed to sign my petition.
As for the OS money (Alex will remember this), there are two separate taxes controlled by two separate ordinances. The city finance director comingled the money for years and finally agreed to separate them into two funds. One tax was in place several years longer than the other.
Another issue was the use of the Conservation Trust Fund (the lottery money the city gets each year). It is advertised as being for open space. But it can be used for rec centers, parks, etc. Mostly a rec center subsidy here in Lafayette. LOSAC was left out of any discussion as to how that money got spent and were told how OS and CTF money was spent was none of their business. That got fixed.
Based on a local article, the legislature passed a law providing the resources to oversee government usage of lottery money. Lafayette got a clean bill of health. But a number of cities got tagged.
I am interested in the "faulty accounting of open space tax revenue," as you initially posted, Kerry. The post immediately above states that there are two open space funds, which is correct, that were co-mingled by the finance department, which is also correct.
I agree that the accounting should be separate. This would prevent, for example, Legacy Fund from being tapped for parks and rec outside of the open space program.
What I can't figure out is how this is conceptually any different from the "Item R" issue I had a few months ago (see April 3 thread "Lafayette Brainstorming Bonds"). In that move, the council agreed to dissolve other dedicated funds, such as PRAD for parks and rec development, and throw the money directly into the General Fund. No one seemed concerned about that accounting practice.
So should we be concerned about accounting for dedicated revenue streams or not?
Per Item R, we were told that the city had maintained a number of separate funds. Since capital projects often included money for two or more funds, money would have to be transfered from several to make up the total expenditure. Just a lot of now needless accounting.
So what we were told is that there would be one fund. But the money would flow into account numbers for each specific current fund. PRAD is now an account number XXX-XXXX or something like that.
When the proposed 2008 budget comes out, 200 pages of account numbers, I can verify it was done that way.
This is not the same as comingling the money.
Tonight's council agenda includes an annexation hearing for which two appeals have been received. Between the appeals, the staff response to the repeals, the annexation info, and rezoning, it is quite a complicated and controversial issue. There is a public hearing on it tonight.
The city council receives its info on Thursday night with the expectation it will somehow review all this stuff and query the city staff by Monday noon for responses by time of Tuesday's 5:30 P.M. start. Many council members work and don't check on Tuesday.
In this case, the Planning Director is unavailable until this a.m., Tuesday. So after placing a controversial annexation on the table, he is incommunicado until today.
This is typical of what goes on at city hall. If anyone can make an informed decision in this manner, please let me know how.
P.S.
There is also a "minor" change in the Community Housing Program, according to the staff report. But my take is it actually negates the intent of the affordable housing ownership philosophy of the entire program. The response from city hall has been to downplay the whole thing. At least we got the spin back yesterday.
A working democracy is all about checks and balances, isn't it?
In that spirit, it deserves mention that the Planning Commission did look at the Community Housing amendments proposed. These were carried forward from the developer roundtable with staff, one of them involving eliminating some minimum floor area requirements and the other to facilitate a wider latitude for providing off-site affordable housing. For what it’s worth, I believe it would be correct to call those amendments minor, in that they don’t really change the investment required of developers and they have nothing to do with changing the philosophy of the program.
Perhaps it’s fair to ask how City Hall is supposed to run if we allow our staff to take vacations or take up the game of golf. I’m not sure these are really the performance measures we should be looking at, but opinions can vary. The interesting thing about the point above is that quasi-judicial decisions are made based only on the public record. Trying to develop clarifications on the record as a decision-maker before getting to the hearing is extremely problematic – believe me, I’ve been there – so I’ve come to believe that contentious cases are going to take a long time no matter what. It will probably be a long meeting tonight, but that’s why we pay the council the big bucks (compared with PC, since our meetings are notoriously short - joke, for those without Lafayette Channel 8).
I’m still trying to figure out if there is a real distinction between Item R and the lumped accounting of open space revenue. Item R talked about consolidating a bunch of funds into the General Fund and then dissolving those individual capital funds. Whether the revenue is subject to some internal tracking or not, that sounds like commingling to me. I am not an accountant, but I do know that if commingling is faulty in one setting, it has the potential to be a problem in another. The impression is that issue identification with City finances is very selective, and based on standards that change arbitrarily. In the end, I was satisfied that I overreacted to Item R, but I do wonder how many accounting and finance problems are something on that order and how many are gravely impacting the City. With tough budget times ahead, clarity is essential.
Alex,
My issue is not with vacations. It is with being out of the office when a conentious annexation is on the table with two appeals. This item could have been moved to the next meeting.
The challenge of city council meetings is quite different due to the breadth of issues on the table in one night. But I certainly don't envy those lengthly PC meetings and have oft been told if one performs the job correctly, PC meetings are tougher.
That being said, we can have the debate on the Community Housing Program changes. But essentially why would any builder include "affordable" units in their new development when they can opt out by buying a supposedly comparable unit elsewhere in town? I don't know how one even defines "comparable" newly constructed unit with an "affordbly" priced "pre-owned" one in another part of town and different neighborhood. The initial argument in favor of the program was to allow folks to buy new affordable units. Developers already have learned how to flip PAs to MRAs. This allows them to opt out of any new units period.
As for accounting, the city's books are audited to make sure all the money is there. And much is not volunteered about how it all works and where it goes. At my first audit meeting, I asked the auditor if the books are audited against the resolutions passed by council. No the answer was. I then asked the city finance director if he kept a binder with them in to follow. He laughed and said no. The city administrator was present. (I know of at least one that was violated consistently.)
I'm spending all morning trying to get help from city hall on this proposed sales tax rebonding and unless I figure out the exact question to ask, I get partial answers. As for clarity, good luck.
I have not had any problems that I can 'recall' with digesting the information in a timely fashion, but maybe my two and a half years on the planning commission before getting on council was good training. I have found staff to be fairly responsive, considering they still have to do their regular jobs AND respond to all of our questions. A council member always has the option of asking council to vote to table an item to a later meeting (there are a few items due to time constraints that cannot) if they feel they have not had enough time or enough information. We have definitely seen an increase in the length of council meetings over the last two years, with workshops becoming almost a permanent feature. If this keeps up the answer may be to add an additional meeting every couple of months to provide more time for staff and council.
Or, it could mean council needs to have a higher level of trust in the administration to handle more things without council involvement.
Could this be a symptom of a weak administration?
D-B,
It is easy to be a council member and have complete trust in the staff. Just follow the staff recommendations and vote that way.
Let's not confuse responsiveness with completeness. If one has training and expertise in specific areas, the bar is set a lot higher. One scratches ones head when one receives incomplete, minimal, or incorrect information. Also the expectations and analysis of the information and consequences of a proposal differ based on the knowledge base of the reviewer.
In other words to some, the staff work can appear to be the work of experts. On the other hand, if the reviewer has performed that work in another life, it can appear the work of a novice.
In private enterprise, if one makes mistakes, faulty proposals, or bad decisions, your job is on the line. Government is another matter. Accountability is hard to find in its vocabulary.
Part of the job of any staff member who submits or supports a proposal for council action is to be prepared to provide information and rationale for that proposal to the decisionmakers. It's part of their job description, not an inconvenience. In the majority of cases, it is the staff making the proposals and setting the agenda.
In private enterprise, would a $1M decision be based on an analysis of two paragraphs?
Post a Comment