20
Dec
2005
The City of Davenport's Vision Statement reads, in part, that the city aims to provide "the best possible services through open communication and mutual support."
The assumption is that this applies to the city council, staff, and the public.
Sadly, that assumption is wrong, especially where the public is concerned. And, as evidenced during last week's Finance Committee meeting, the "vision" certainly does not apply to individual aldermen.
Finance Committee members, including Aldermen Ahrens, Bushek, Howard, Barnhill, and Moritz, along with Mayor Brooke, chastised Alderman Meyer for requesting data and posing questions to the both the committee and DavenportOne regarding DavenportOne's request for $500,000 from the city to fund its D1 Initiative.
Alderman Meyer's questions were met with open hostility and evoked responses from the committee that clearly demonstrated not only its predisposition to grant DavenportOne's request, but that its members were not interested in even the slightest amount of due diligence. It was also clear that in some cases, the aldermen did not posses the intelligence to grasp the relevant financial data that should have automatically been forthcoming from DavenportOne.
Alderman Howard stated, "We should not be asking DavenportOne for their financials, but we should be celebrating their successes. And I am being told I will be getting a copy of that report card on Monday." Adlermen Ahrens stated that Meyer's questions were "driving a wedge between our private partner and the city."
Obviously this committee is not capable of connecting the dots between finance and "success stories." Nor does it feel compelled to justify giving away $500,000 of taxpayers' money to DavenportOne by verifying any of the claims made about its activities. More importantly, it actively discouraged such discovery by objecting to questions asked by a fellow alderman.
It doesn't get much worse than this. Alderman Howard, and fellow Finance Committee members, no more represent the public in these proceedings than do the special interests that come before them, such as DavenportOne. The committee's conduct reflects such a clear bias in favor of these special interests over those of the public that citizens can no longer even pretend to trust these particular elected officials.
It is a serious matter when an alderman cannot depend on open communication and support from his peers when attempting due diligence relative to spending taxpayers' dollars. And if a fellow alderman cannot be heard, where does that leave the public in this process?
Last week's proceedings illustrate the reality that most important council decisions, at least in Davenport, are already determined before the items are introduced to the public at committee meetings, which begins the cycle that governs city business.
It is at this initial stage that the newly formed governance committee claims the public can engage in the process. It has been decreed that the committee meetings provide the time and place for pubic input, where citizens can raise questions and/or concerns for discussion with the aldermen who compose the committees.
In fact, Davenport's High Performance Governance Committee recommends: "Encourage citizen input at beginning of process, before alderman take positions. Education of citizens on the public-input options (e-mail, phone, committee meetings, etc.). Additionally the council-meeting structure is designed to have various times of days available for public meetings and ordinances require three readings giving ample time for consideration and debate." (July 20, 2005, minutes).
The committees' responsibilities include answering questions and resolving concerns before the issue goes before the Committee of the Whole (COW), at which the entire council is introduced to an issue and given all the details, etc. for a more comprehensive discussion before a final vote is taken during the regular council meetings (CC). Once all required information is gathered, questions clarified, and concerns resolved, the process for a final vote can begin, which consists of three readings over three cycles, a minimum of six weeks.
Unfortunately, the committee meetings (which take place from 1 through 5 p.m. every other Thursday) are conducted no differently than the COWs or CCs in that no investigative process is pursued, and no public discussion occurs. If citizens are present during a committee meeting, the council hears them briefly, but is not compelled to offer a direct response or engage in any discussion whatsoever. Each citizen is allotted five minutes during Public with Business, representing the sum total of the time period in which the public is expected to engage these elected officials, who in turn should direct staff for information when necessary.
It follows, however, that if committee members are unwilling to go through the investigative process with one another, they are hardly willing to do it with the public. It is a rare occasion when committees go on to present any public input obtained during its meetings to the others during Committee of the Whole.
The COW's and the CC's meeting-agenda disclaimer prior to Public with Business reads as follows: "At this time individuals may address the City Council on any matters of City business. This is not an opportunity to discuss issues with the Council members or get information. That opportunity exists at prior committee meetings or in individual conversations with elected officials. In accordance with Open Meetings Law, the Council cannot take action on any complaint or suggestions tonight, and cannot respond to any allegations at this time." So much for the public process.
This dynamic presents a real barrier for citizens who sincerely seek answers to serious questions, be they financial, environmental, legal, or otherwise - let alone debate an issue in the hopes of informing an alderman prior to a vote, as promised by the city's own documentation. Here's why:
(1) To date, the public has no way of readily knowing what issues are on a standing committee agenda until the day of the meeting. Special interest groups not only know ahead of time what's coming, but actually help set the agenda for these meetings.
(2) Meanwhile, at these standing committee meetings, there is no meaningful opportunity to "discuss issues with the council members or get information." Citizens are allotted only five minutes to speak to the council, with no requirement for the council to respond.
(3) The standing committee meetings are held during the middle of an afternoon, during regular business hours for most citizens (unless of course your primary job is to influence and do business with city officials). And, with relatively no advance notice of what will appear on committee agendas, the public has little or no chance to mobilize additional stakeholders who might have some impact in sheer volume at such meetings.
How much more vital would the city's vision of open communication be if this council had the vision and stewardship to invest $500,000 over the next five years in expanding the scope, content, distribution, and access to the city's Web site and cable channel? (Approving $500,000 of taxpayers' money to DavenportOne, which is essentially a lobbying group, is not an appropriate expenditure and should be revisited immediately for legitimacy.)
For starters, open communication should include : broadcasting the council meetings live on cable and recording for future viewing; passing an ordinance for "green sheets" and committee agendas to be published on the city's Web site at least 48 hours prior to a committee meeting, and making it illegal to amend the agenda without some formal process that includes public notification; creating and posting a comprehensive schedule of meetings that involve the mayor, any aldermen, administrator, department heads, or staff greater than three, including the parties being met with; the live broadcasting on cable of all council, commission, and special meetings, which would also be recorded for future viewing; making available online and on cable information about all significant projects, including presentations, locations, and any actions taken on them; the posting of the the council update online; and an online forum through which the public can weigh in with alderman and the city administrator that is accessible to the public and trackable over time.
Sadly, that assumption is wrong, especially where the public is concerned. And, as evidenced during last week's Finance Committee meeting, the "vision" certainly does not apply to individual aldermen.
Finance Committee members, including Aldermen Ahrens, Bushek, Howard, Barnhill, and Moritz, along with Mayor Brooke, chastised Alderman Meyer for requesting data and posing questions to the both the committee and DavenportOne regarding DavenportOne's request for $500,000 from the city to fund its D1 Initiative.
Alderman Meyer's questions were met with open hostility and evoked responses from the committee that clearly demonstrated not only its predisposition to grant DavenportOne's request, but that its members were not interested in even the slightest amount of due diligence. It was also clear that in some cases, the aldermen did not posses the intelligence to grasp the relevant financial data that should have automatically been forthcoming from DavenportOne.
Alderman Howard stated, "We should not be asking DavenportOne for their financials, but we should be celebrating their successes. And I am being told I will be getting a copy of that report card on Monday." Adlermen Ahrens stated that Meyer's questions were "driving a wedge between our private partner and the city."
Obviously this committee is not capable of connecting the dots between finance and "success stories." Nor does it feel compelled to justify giving away $500,000 of taxpayers' money to DavenportOne by verifying any of the claims made about its activities. More importantly, it actively discouraged such discovery by objecting to questions asked by a fellow alderman.
It doesn't get much worse than this. Alderman Howard, and fellow Finance Committee members, no more represent the public in these proceedings than do the special interests that come before them, such as DavenportOne. The committee's conduct reflects such a clear bias in favor of these special interests over those of the public that citizens can no longer even pretend to trust these particular elected officials.
It is a serious matter when an alderman cannot depend on open communication and support from his peers when attempting due diligence relative to spending taxpayers' dollars. And if a fellow alderman cannot be heard, where does that leave the public in this process?
Last week's proceedings illustrate the reality that most important council decisions, at least in Davenport, are already determined before the items are introduced to the public at committee meetings, which begins the cycle that governs city business.
It is at this initial stage that the newly formed governance committee claims the public can engage in the process. It has been decreed that the committee meetings provide the time and place for pubic input, where citizens can raise questions and/or concerns for discussion with the aldermen who compose the committees.
In fact, Davenport's High Performance Governance Committee recommends: "Encourage citizen input at beginning of process, before alderman take positions. Education of citizens on the public-input options (e-mail, phone, committee meetings, etc.). Additionally the council-meeting structure is designed to have various times of days available for public meetings and ordinances require three readings giving ample time for consideration and debate." (July 20, 2005, minutes).
The committees' responsibilities include answering questions and resolving concerns before the issue goes before the Committee of the Whole (COW), at which the entire council is introduced to an issue and given all the details, etc. for a more comprehensive discussion before a final vote is taken during the regular council meetings (CC). Once all required information is gathered, questions clarified, and concerns resolved, the process for a final vote can begin, which consists of three readings over three cycles, a minimum of six weeks.
Unfortunately, the committee meetings (which take place from 1 through 5 p.m. every other Thursday) are conducted no differently than the COWs or CCs in that no investigative process is pursued, and no public discussion occurs. If citizens are present during a committee meeting, the council hears them briefly, but is not compelled to offer a direct response or engage in any discussion whatsoever. Each citizen is allotted five minutes during Public with Business, representing the sum total of the time period in which the public is expected to engage these elected officials, who in turn should direct staff for information when necessary.
It follows, however, that if committee members are unwilling to go through the investigative process with one another, they are hardly willing to do it with the public. It is a rare occasion when committees go on to present any public input obtained during its meetings to the others during Committee of the Whole.
The COW's and the CC's meeting-agenda disclaimer prior to Public with Business reads as follows: "At this time individuals may address the City Council on any matters of City business. This is not an opportunity to discuss issues with the Council members or get information. That opportunity exists at prior committee meetings or in individual conversations with elected officials. In accordance with Open Meetings Law, the Council cannot take action on any complaint or suggestions tonight, and cannot respond to any allegations at this time." So much for the public process.
This dynamic presents a real barrier for citizens who sincerely seek answers to serious questions, be they financial, environmental, legal, or otherwise - let alone debate an issue in the hopes of informing an alderman prior to a vote, as promised by the city's own documentation. Here's why:
(1) To date, the public has no way of readily knowing what issues are on a standing committee agenda until the day of the meeting. Special interest groups not only know ahead of time what's coming, but actually help set the agenda for these meetings.
(2) Meanwhile, at these standing committee meetings, there is no meaningful opportunity to "discuss issues with the council members or get information." Citizens are allotted only five minutes to speak to the council, with no requirement for the council to respond.
(3) The standing committee meetings are held during the middle of an afternoon, during regular business hours for most citizens (unless of course your primary job is to influence and do business with city officials). And, with relatively no advance notice of what will appear on committee agendas, the public has little or no chance to mobilize additional stakeholders who might have some impact in sheer volume at such meetings.
How much more vital would the city's vision of open communication be if this council had the vision and stewardship to invest $500,000 over the next five years in expanding the scope, content, distribution, and access to the city's Web site and cable channel? (Approving $500,000 of taxpayers' money to DavenportOne, which is essentially a lobbying group, is not an appropriate expenditure and should be revisited immediately for legitimacy.)
For starters, open communication should include : broadcasting the council meetings live on cable and recording for future viewing; passing an ordinance for "green sheets" and committee agendas to be published on the city's Web site at least 48 hours prior to a committee meeting, and making it illegal to amend the agenda without some formal process that includes public notification; creating and posting a comprehensive schedule of meetings that involve the mayor, any aldermen, administrator, department heads, or staff greater than three, including the parties being met with; the live broadcasting on cable of all council, commission, and special meetings, which would also be recorded for future viewing; making available online and on cable information about all significant projects, including presentations, locations, and any actions taken on them; the posting of the the council update online; and an online forum through which the public can weigh in with alderman and the city administrator that is accessible to the public and trackable over time.
