In last Thursday morning's Standard-Examiner, there was an article about how the Council violated its own procedure by not allowing the letters and resumes of applicants to be made public. Having recently participated in the applicant procedure, here's a sequential overview of how it went.
- Announcement in a press release of the opening, with instructions as to when and where applicants should submit, with the admonition that submissions would be public information.
- Submitted my letter of intent and resume on September 11, 2006, minus anything that I did not wish to be public information, and received Council Handbook, with a date on the cover of September 12, 2006, which also stated inside that submitted info was public information. (This was quite clear at this point in the process.)
- Received letter stating that "requests" had been received that the order of presentation appearance would not be determined by lot at the meeting, as handbook said it would be, but had already been determined and here it was, enclosed. No mention of who made or granted requests or how decision to do this was made, or by whom.
- Announcement at the first applicant screening by Chair Garcia that the press was present and requesting the information heretofore deemed public information and that "it had been decided" that it was now private information and would not be released to them.
Cook said private information provided by some of the council finalists could have been redacted, enabling the letters to be made public, but the process would have been too cumbersome.
The decision to withhold the letters was made in conjunction with City Council Chairman Jesse Garcia, Vice Chairwoman Amy Wicks, and City Attorney Gary Williams.
I think this is an excellent illustration of why we have had, are having, and will continue to have unless this is fixed, problems with the functioning of local city government. It is simply not working the way it was designed to.
What we're talking about here is Policy. Setting policy is the Council's function. Yet did the Council as a whole know about the changes in the policy as outlined in the policy handbook? I know of at least one member who did not, so the answer to that is no.
Thursday's article baldly states that the decision to change the public/private info part of the policy was made in a meeting with the Chair, Vice Chair, Exec, and Attorney. The article goes on to say:
The council's policy will be amended to reflect circumstances when information on applicants for appointed positions may be withheld, Cook said.
We really need to get one thing straight. A very simple thing. The Council sets policy. Not two members of the council, not the executive director, and not the attorney, and not those four individuals in a private meeting. The council as a whole does this.
Was there a public meeting and a resolution passed stating these changes in policy? That's the way it's supposed to happen.
I don't think it did.
What we seem to have, and heaven knows how it got this way, is two members of the council suddenly having elevated policy making/changing powers. Evidently, this is accepted and happens frequently, and may be one reason why we, when we question council members about one decision or another, receive the response---We didn't know.
We the voting public, who are always making a great deal of noise about accountability, have shrugged our shoulders at that response and accepted it. It seems that the council itself accepts this method of decision making as business as usual. We should remember, however, that we did not vote for two people, an exec, and an attorney to be our legislative governing body. We voted for a council of seven.
Each of those seven individuals has one vote, and they should be using it. That is their responsibility as elected officials. If they are being prohibited from using it, they should rectify that.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the specific decisions made in the above examples is not the main issue. The main issue is that it seems decisions are being made in the name of the Council in some instances without the previous knowledge or consent of the full body.
That's not right. It means that our system is not working the way it is supposed to. And although one might think that these decisions concern trivial matters, or that no real harm was done, the fact remains that the day might come when matters under consideration are not trivial. Can we really expect a body of individuals, our council, which is used to working in the way I have just outlined, to instinctively make a rapid about-face and immediately begin functioning the way it was intended to? Especially since it hasn't been doing that for some time now?
I don't think so. I'm drawing attention to this not because I have any quarrel with the way things turned out, (I do not,) but because I think it shows a disregard for established policy that does not bode well. I think this is something that the council as a body should address, and the sooner the better.
Accountability is just that--accountability, and to be held accountable for decisions one in actuality had no part in making is not a safe or desirable state of affairs for anyone. Including all of us.
Ed. Note: This morning's excellent Standard-Examiner editorial touches briefly upon Dian's issue concerning improper and extra-legal exercise of government powers, and also broadens the discussion to include a valid indictment of generally-increasing government secrecy. Both approaches, of course, focus on the greater issue of compromised government accountability. Although we are often critical of the Std-Ex for what we sometimes deem to be lax editorial and reportorial standards, we will also give credit where it is due, and commend the Std-Ex editorial board for this morning's strong editorial.
