Navigating the City of Davenport's Web site (http://www.cityofdavenportiowa.com) for basic information is not without its challenges. It appears to be selectively filtered and purposely obscure. It begs the question: Who is in charge of the dissemination of information that gets posted, who actually posts it, and is any city staff charged with increasing its ease of use?
As an example, one would think that a calendar of upcoming city-council and committee meetings would be obvious information that should be available at Davenport's Web site. One can find minutes from the previous proceedings, but nowhere is there a listing of upcoming meetings or public hearings.
How about the High Performance Government committees, such as the newly established Governance Committee? Where can it be found? Under "City Committees and Commissions"? No, because there is no such category. Where then? Well, first click on "Latest News." Then scroll to "High Performance Work Group." Finally, click on "governance," which is listed in blue within the text describing five new committees comprising various members of the community, including city personnel and aldermen.
Want to know who is on the governance committee? Open the minutes and add the names listed after "Attendees" to those names listed separately beneath this category with a curiously unbolded "(absent)" trailing behind, as if trying to downplay the routine lack of participation on the part of committee members such as attorney/developer Steven Schalk, Sixth Ward Alderman Bob McGivern, DavenportOne staffer Betsy Bransgard, and ex-alderman Ruth Reynolds.
Routinely present for the governance meetings are Jeff Justin (co-chair), Rich Moroney (co-chair), realtor Jeff Heuer, assistant county attorney Tom Frtizsche, and city attorney Mary Thee.
Among controversial topics for discussion during these meetings are four-year term limits for council members; reducing the number of aldermen from 10 to six; and limiting public input during council meetings.
I can understand wanting longer terms for elected officials, because the shorter two-year terms render the already-feckless aldermen even more cowardly when it comes to making decisions that might hurt their chances for re-election. Reducing the number of aldermen wouldn't hurt if such elected officials resemble those councilmen that have failed to appropriately represent Davenport citizens in recent years, evidenced by approval of an 11-story casino on its riverfront; an attempted private, mixed-use development complete with golf course on the backs of taxpayers (53rd and Eastern); approval of TIF for companies that did not qualify or comply with TIF regulations; the higher-than-necessary stormwater tax; establishment of the Greater Davenport Redevelopment Corporation that continues to miss the mark on occupancy ... and the list goes on.
Limiting public input at council meetings, however, is an outrageous insult to the taxpaying public. The city's current lack of consideration for public sentiment is frighteningly prevalent, so to further degrade what is already a hugely limited process speaks to city government's disrespect for its residents.
On the other hand, citizens' lack of response to such conduct is only furthering the leadership's contempt for us. It is deeply disturbing that the public has thus far allowed some of the most damaging local legislation to occur in decades, legislation that benefits a paltry few, while negatively impacting the entire community, such as a casino becoming the dominating component of an otherwise stunning revitalization of Davenport's downtown, not to mention completely eliminating eastern river views for many downtown properties west of Brady Street.
The mission of the governance committee is to implement more efficient government, and some participants claim that further limiting the public portion of the process will improve functionality. This is completely contrary to and undermines the city's vision statement: "Providing the best possible services through open communication and mutual support ... . Our ultimate goal is Customer Satisfaction."
The real reason for this politically arrogant maneuver is to silence activists who "embarrass" the council with observations and questions that the aldermen are incapable of addressing, because being uninformed has become an accepted standard relative to elected civic representation, contributing to the status quo that defines Davenport's leadership. If the council doesn't require accountability from city staff and those special interests that make up the majority of the council's sphere of influence, then citizens are rendered impotent in participating in the civic process.
The sad thing is that if aldermen would represent the public in a principled manner, keeping in mind that they serve a constituency as part of a larger community - not just the relentless special interests year in and year out, whose objectives are often severely tunnel-visioned and shortsighted - it would result in civic empowerment, creating exponential economic growth due to far more positive outcomes than negative ones.
As an example, one would think that a calendar of upcoming city-council and committee meetings would be obvious information that should be available at Davenport's Web site. One can find minutes from the previous proceedings, but nowhere is there a listing of upcoming meetings or public hearings.
How about the High Performance Government committees, such as the newly established Governance Committee? Where can it be found? Under "City Committees and Commissions"? No, because there is no such category. Where then? Well, first click on "Latest News." Then scroll to "High Performance Work Group." Finally, click on "governance," which is listed in blue within the text describing five new committees comprising various members of the community, including city personnel and aldermen.
Want to know who is on the governance committee? Open the minutes and add the names listed after "Attendees" to those names listed separately beneath this category with a curiously unbolded "(absent)" trailing behind, as if trying to downplay the routine lack of participation on the part of committee members such as attorney/developer Steven Schalk, Sixth Ward Alderman Bob McGivern, DavenportOne staffer Betsy Bransgard, and ex-alderman Ruth Reynolds.
Routinely present for the governance meetings are Jeff Justin (co-chair), Rich Moroney (co-chair), realtor Jeff Heuer, assistant county attorney Tom Frtizsche, and city attorney Mary Thee.
Among controversial topics for discussion during these meetings are four-year term limits for council members; reducing the number of aldermen from 10 to six; and limiting public input during council meetings.
I can understand wanting longer terms for elected officials, because the shorter two-year terms render the already-feckless aldermen even more cowardly when it comes to making decisions that might hurt their chances for re-election. Reducing the number of aldermen wouldn't hurt if such elected officials resemble those councilmen that have failed to appropriately represent Davenport citizens in recent years, evidenced by approval of an 11-story casino on its riverfront; an attempted private, mixed-use development complete with golf course on the backs of taxpayers (53rd and Eastern); approval of TIF for companies that did not qualify or comply with TIF regulations; the higher-than-necessary stormwater tax; establishment of the Greater Davenport Redevelopment Corporation that continues to miss the mark on occupancy ... and the list goes on.
Limiting public input at council meetings, however, is an outrageous insult to the taxpaying public. The city's current lack of consideration for public sentiment is frighteningly prevalent, so to further degrade what is already a hugely limited process speaks to city government's disrespect for its residents.
On the other hand, citizens' lack of response to such conduct is only furthering the leadership's contempt for us. It is deeply disturbing that the public has thus far allowed some of the most damaging local legislation to occur in decades, legislation that benefits a paltry few, while negatively impacting the entire community, such as a casino becoming the dominating component of an otherwise stunning revitalization of Davenport's downtown, not to mention completely eliminating eastern river views for many downtown properties west of Brady Street.
The mission of the governance committee is to implement more efficient government, and some participants claim that further limiting the public portion of the process will improve functionality. This is completely contrary to and undermines the city's vision statement: "Providing the best possible services through open communication and mutual support ... . Our ultimate goal is Customer Satisfaction."
The real reason for this politically arrogant maneuver is to silence activists who "embarrass" the council with observations and questions that the aldermen are incapable of addressing, because being uninformed has become an accepted standard relative to elected civic representation, contributing to the status quo that defines Davenport's leadership. If the council doesn't require accountability from city staff and those special interests that make up the majority of the council's sphere of influence, then citizens are rendered impotent in participating in the civic process.
The sad thing is that if aldermen would represent the public in a principled manner, keeping in mind that they serve a constituency as part of a larger community - not just the relentless special interests year in and year out, whose objectives are often severely tunnel-visioned and shortsighted - it would result in civic empowerment, creating exponential economic growth due to far more positive outcomes than negative ones.
