On Monday after my article appeared on the Employee Assistance Plan (EAP) situation involving a city staffer who gave false and misleading information to council about a 23 year city vendor, I received a call from a former city councilmember. That councilmember expressed both gratitude and frustration. It seems that during their tenure this was a frequent problem. The only difference back then is the no one bothered to report it. According to them, city staff would often give false information to council, sometimes it was intentionally so. Accurate information and alternative viewpoints were very difficult to obtain.
This problem is largest for those who are members of the minority faction. The majority often simply does not care how city staff operates as long as they get their agenda passed. Process goes by the wayside. At the same time, with a city manager driven system, the city council is almost and completely reliant on the advise and information provided by city staff. The council is not given their own staffers, as other systems of government including the County Supervisors provide. And while these employees are completely at-will and can be hired and fired with no cause given (as opposed to civil servants who have immense protections), it is only those who control the three votes that really have such power to force the city manager's hand.
It goes beyond simply a matter of city staff making mistakes. When we look at the water issue, one of the biggest problems is that city staff controls the flow of information to the city council. The water issue is a greatly complicated issue, as I discovered when I tried to wade through merely five years of public records on the subject.
A few things became evident from the public record. First, that city staff and not necessarily city council had vast control over the trajectory of policy. City council did pass by a 3-2 vote authorization to embark on alternative 5 in 2002. However, a stream of EIRs and MOUs led council eventually upon a very different path. City staff often had a larger role than council in guiding the trajectory of this policy.
Second, staff has been very reluctant, especially for the minority view, to provide them with alternative options. This was very clear last week when Mayor Sue Greenwald tried to push staff to provide her with answers to questions. Each time, the staff response was that we could not pursue this option. The Mayor wanted an answer to the substantive question, not an opinion on its feasibility. We should have an array of consultants that would give us different advice from the advice recommended by the staff and then the council can decide which is the best approach.
The problem of course in the case of water is that a councilmember simply lacks the expertise to understand the dynamics of the water supply and waste treatment plans. They have to rely not only on city staff, but also on consultants and lawyers to navigate through a very complex policy realm. Consultants and lawyers who are not always neutral bystanders and disinterested parties. That creates a situation where staff through their expertise serves as the gatekeeper of information and that situation puts a tremendous amount of power in the hands of an unelected city staff and removes a tremendous amount of power from the hands of people that the voters in this city elected.
Third as we have mentioned in past articles and commentary, this situation creates a perverse power structure where the City Manager is often deemed to be the chief power within the system. The City Manager not only holds the office space, controls city staff, and makes many if not most of the executive decisions that do not require council action, but the City Manager also has the power to structure debate and control the flow of information. While the City Manager answers to city council, in effect, the City Manager answers only to the strongest powers within city council, the council majority. In effect, as long as the City Manager does the bidding of the council majority, he is largely free to do as he chooses. This situation creates vast problems for council minorities who lack the power and leverage to have much say in the conduct and operations of city staff and the city manager.
More valuable even than numerical numbers is the flow of information. That flow of information is almost completely controlled by city staff working at the behest of the council majority. Without access to their own staff, the council minority not only has a numerical disadvantage, but they lack the ability and platform to be able to provide their own information to counter the message sent by the council majority.
At times, this puts the council minority at an even stronger disadvantage, because they do not even possess the information at times to counter what the council majority is doing. At other times, it has required members of the council minority to get independent assessments or do their own research. These are people who were elected by the same people who elected the council majority and people who are not being paid more than a token $500 stipend. This is not the way that these members of the Davis City Council ought to be treated.
It is clear to me that changes need to made in the structure of city government. As the complexity of governmental decisions increases, we need our council members whether they be in the majority or in the minority to be given a full array of options and alternatives so that they can make an informed decision. Unfortunately those needs are not being met by the current system.
---Doug Paul Davis reporting
This problem is largest for those who are members of the minority faction. The majority often simply does not care how city staff operates as long as they get their agenda passed. Process goes by the wayside. At the same time, with a city manager driven system, the city council is almost and completely reliant on the advise and information provided by city staff. The council is not given their own staffers, as other systems of government including the County Supervisors provide. And while these employees are completely at-will and can be hired and fired with no cause given (as opposed to civil servants who have immense protections), it is only those who control the three votes that really have such power to force the city manager's hand.
It goes beyond simply a matter of city staff making mistakes. When we look at the water issue, one of the biggest problems is that city staff controls the flow of information to the city council. The water issue is a greatly complicated issue, as I discovered when I tried to wade through merely five years of public records on the subject.
A few things became evident from the public record. First, that city staff and not necessarily city council had vast control over the trajectory of policy. City council did pass by a 3-2 vote authorization to embark on alternative 5 in 2002. However, a stream of EIRs and MOUs led council eventually upon a very different path. City staff often had a larger role than council in guiding the trajectory of this policy.
Second, staff has been very reluctant, especially for the minority view, to provide them with alternative options. This was very clear last week when Mayor Sue Greenwald tried to push staff to provide her with answers to questions. Each time, the staff response was that we could not pursue this option. The Mayor wanted an answer to the substantive question, not an opinion on its feasibility. We should have an array of consultants that would give us different advice from the advice recommended by the staff and then the council can decide which is the best approach.
The problem of course in the case of water is that a councilmember simply lacks the expertise to understand the dynamics of the water supply and waste treatment plans. They have to rely not only on city staff, but also on consultants and lawyers to navigate through a very complex policy realm. Consultants and lawyers who are not always neutral bystanders and disinterested parties. That creates a situation where staff through their expertise serves as the gatekeeper of information and that situation puts a tremendous amount of power in the hands of an unelected city staff and removes a tremendous amount of power from the hands of people that the voters in this city elected.
Third as we have mentioned in past articles and commentary, this situation creates a perverse power structure where the City Manager is often deemed to be the chief power within the system. The City Manager not only holds the office space, controls city staff, and makes many if not most of the executive decisions that do not require council action, but the City Manager also has the power to structure debate and control the flow of information. While the City Manager answers to city council, in effect, the City Manager answers only to the strongest powers within city council, the council majority. In effect, as long as the City Manager does the bidding of the council majority, he is largely free to do as he chooses. This situation creates vast problems for council minorities who lack the power and leverage to have much say in the conduct and operations of city staff and the city manager.
More valuable even than numerical numbers is the flow of information. That flow of information is almost completely controlled by city staff working at the behest of the council majority. Without access to their own staff, the council minority not only has a numerical disadvantage, but they lack the ability and platform to be able to provide their own information to counter the message sent by the council majority.
At times, this puts the council minority at an even stronger disadvantage, because they do not even possess the information at times to counter what the council majority is doing. At other times, it has required members of the council minority to get independent assessments or do their own research. These are people who were elected by the same people who elected the council majority and people who are not being paid more than a token $500 stipend. This is not the way that these members of the Davis City Council ought to be treated.
It is clear to me that changes need to made in the structure of city government. As the complexity of governmental decisions increases, we need our council members whether they be in the majority or in the minority to be given a full array of options and alternatives so that they can make an informed decision. Unfortunately those needs are not being met by the current system.
---Doug Paul Davis reporting
