HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-10-19 Public Comment - C. Taylor - Commission Interactions with City EmployeesFrom:Carson Taylor
To:Agenda
Subject:Resolution 5124
Date:Tuesday, December 10, 2019 4:03:11 PM
To the City Commission: 12/10/2019
Re: Wednesday December 11, 2019 special meeting
I have read and contemplated the content of and materials provided with Resolution 5124and offer the following thoughts:
The primary purpose of any such resolution should be creation of good and efficient government
and governmental policy.
There are four places where informal and simple communication with staff needs to be as efficientas possible. 1. Inquiries or questions about the staff report before a Commission meeting, so that aCommissioner is fully understanding and informed; 2. Discussion about agendas and issues that arein front of an Advisory Board, when Staff and Commissioner should be on the same page; 3. Findingout information so that a citizen can be responded to; and 4. Complicated situations where a giveand take discourse can clarify either the understanding of a Commissioner or Staff person. Myexperience with staff-commissioner communication over these issues is that most of the time directcontact is more efficient and inconsequential. Are we creating a cumbersome system to solve aproblem with a system that generally has worked well, at least, in my 8 years on the Commission?
Creating a requirement that a Commissioner communicate through the City Manager and/or a
Director creates a process that is generally not necessary and is always cumbersome and time
consuming for the City Manager and the Director and the Commissioner. The Commission and the
City Manager already have the tools to curb abuses. As stated in the beginning paragraphs, the
Charter, Core Values and Strategic Plan address appropriate and inappropriate activity by Staff and
Commissioners.
I believe that it is important to understand that Commissioners and staff are a set of individuals whoacquire information and understanding in different ways. Because of this, a single set of access ruleswill favor and disfavor certain personalities and quirks to the detriment of individual commissionersand individual staff members. The result will be that policy making will suffer to the detriment of ourcommunity. In the past we have adapted situations to individuals so that Commissioners are asprepared as possible before meetings---thereby creating thoughtful and fruitful policy discussions.
Inevitably, there is concern by Commissioners and Staff that one person or another has too much
access to one and other, but this situation will not be controlled by Rules. Commissioners have
different ways of persuading and influencing decisions by staff. At its worst it happens through
exploiting fear of unfair criticism, force of personality, kind cajoling/manipulating and sometimes
threats of reprisal. None of the above is ideal and some is outright wrong, but it and more exists. Is
this concern solved by rules of Commissioner access to Staff? At its best some give and take
between thoughtful and supportive Commissioners and Staff persons creates better informed
decision-making.
Resolution 5124 seems aimed at controlling all contact initiated by Commissioners toward Staff. But, what about the reverse. For example: Is it OK for a staff person to call up a Commissionerto get his/her opinion on a public issue that the Commissioner is particularly attuned to? Is it OKfor Staff to work closely with a Commissioner to accomplish a Commission policy decision in anAdvisory Committee meeting? Can they meet in advance to coordinate? What about attendinga weekly public meeting billed as public access to your Commissioner? Is Staff attendance at suchevents really voluntary? Who determines that? What about a Staff person meeting regularlywith a new Commissioner to explain staff reports?
One could argue that all of the above contact could be authorized and regulated by the City
Manager based on specific and concrete circumstances, but then you put the City Manager in a
position of authorizing some contact with certain Commissioners, but not with others. Can the CityManager decide on an individual basis when a meeting between Staff and a Commissioner is OK andwhen it is not? Won’t the squeaky wheel always get the grease? And then won’t the City Managerbe seen as favoring one Commissioner over another?
With all of the above in mind I offer the following specific thoughts:
1. 8. a. is way too cumbersome. There needs to be more flexibility in allowingcommunication between staff and commissioners.2. 8. b. could be tried out, but I imagine it will end up with a finding that directquestions are more efficient.3. 8. e. “Extenuating circumstances” is an invitation for on the spot subjectiveexceptions.4. 8. f. Seems inconsistent with 8. a. and even more cumbersome.5. 9. a. and b. are already covered by the Charter and Resolution 3832 and should beenforced directly with the offending person. We do not need new rules here. Forinstance, everyone knows that a Commissioner can not order staff to do anything.6. 9. c. could be tried, but beware of the flow of a meeting being disrupted by theMayor and/or City Manager having to decide what “factual basis” means.7. 9. d. What are major v. minor policy questions and shouldn’t a Commissioner beable to get input on whether the employee thinks that a Commission decision is workingwell?8. 10. b. certainly violates the rights of a Commissioner who is also a citizen to attenda public meeting. In addition, it is very useful and informational for Commissioners tosee and understand how the public sees a given issue. Why should they be deprived ofthat?9. If 11. means staff and Commissioners should approach Advisory meetings as a teamthat is acting with the common goal of maximizing informed Advisory Board input, thenit is great. However, to do this Staff and Commission might need to coordinate andmeet on the subjects before the Advisory Boards.
I offer the above thoughts with full knowledge that I am not privy or a witness to whatever hasprompted the introduction of this Resolution. Please take the above-mentioned ideas as food forthought as you consider the appropriate course of action. If something has happened in the last twoyears that precipitates this proposed Resolution, I suggest that you already have the tools toconfront it, and I humbly suggest that you directly confront the problem.
Respectfully,
Carson Taylor