|
Ice Arena Dialogue |
Tempest in a Teapot
-- two years later
Last week's CITCOM tiff about
whether or not to re-establish an Ice Arena Committee -- unfortunately,
from a resident's perspective -- had less to do with the substance of
the debate than with protocol (read: politics).
In 2006, I publicly reversed myself about the combination of substance and politics. I first wrote, " . . . it would be unkind to label the debate a tempest in a teapot." A week later I wrote, "Having written all that, I've changed my mind: This is a tempest in a teapot." [See]
It is now March 2008. A review of my files reveals that much of what I wrote in 2006 remains pertinent and provides context for the following comments..
The first reading, in 2006, of a proposed ordinance to re-create the Ice Arena Committee was approved, the second reading was defeated. During the weeks-long debate, at least two commissioners changed their mind. But the debate -- though partially political -- was substantive. "Political", here, refers both to partisan Dem vs. Repubs and to the, inevitable and appropriate, behind-the-scenes encounters among pro- and con-citizens with each other and with elected and appointed officials.
So, it is understandable that some commissioners and city hall observers considered it suspect that the issue was brought forth last week for an up-or-down vote with little previous notice. That the proposal was made by the Appointments Committee is unusual, but not necessarily improper. That it was obviously brought forth because the newest commissioner made certain a 4-3 vote in favor is again not necessarily improper but suggests that proponents of re-creating the Ice Arena Committee prefer not to re-open the discussion.
On the one hand, one can say everything has been discussed; on the other hand, two years have passed; some of the problems have apparently been resolved; Parks & Rec has apparently not been alerted; it wasn't clear whether the arena manager wants a committee or whether he knew of the decision of the Appointments Committee to bring the matter up.
Whether this substantial city asset, the ice arena, would benefit from re-creating the Ice Arena Committee; whether establishing an ad hoc committee to address specific problems which might arise; whether the participants (hockey clubs, parents, the director, city staff) have changed or have changed their mind; whether Royal Oak should even be involved in operating an Ice Arena -- all those "whethers" deserve deliberate consideration and more than a suspect procedural maneuver. -- 12 Mar 08
New Ice
Arena Committee formed?
In what seem to be the minutes of an
active committee devoted to Ice Arena matters, it is reported that a
"User Group Meeting" was attended by the "board of
directors from the Royal Oak Hockey Association, North Suburban Figures Skating
Club and Royal Oak Raven Highs School Hockey Team. Tod Gazetti [City
Recreation Supervisor] attended the meeting also." Earlier, the city
commission had debated whether the officially dissolved Ice Arena Committee
needs to be reactivated.
According to the meeting summary, items discussed included ice rates, special events, capital improvements, resurfacing parking lots, the need for a home locker room for the Ravens, a lighted sign at Crooks and Lexington to promote upcoming events. -- 16 Aug 06
The public ice arena dialogue began in May 2006. See below.
Part 1 of 3
--
Ice Arena debate
raises 3 questions
The debate about the need or not to re-create the Ice Arena Committee has City Hall observers wondering: (1) Is Democrat/Republican politics
in-play? The fact that Commissioner Lelito changed his vote and that
Commissioner Ginotti mentioned "politics" has generated more
than the usual speculation that undue political pressure is affecting the
debate. (2) Has
Commission/Administration tension morphed into dissension? (3) What's all the
fuss about?
Is Democrat/Republican politics
in-play?
First, a light-hearted suggestion.
Coincidentally or not, the three Republican commissioners, the "GOPers,"
sit on the right side of the commission table and the two Democrats and
the Independent on the left side.
Often enough to generate comment, each of the sides seems to argue as a bloc;
fortunately -- this being a nonpartisan commission --voting seldom reflects a
party-focus. My suggestion: Have Drinkwine and Ginotti, or Capello and Andrzejak, switch seats.
No need to change committee assignments because of revised seating.
The two new commission members are Democrat Gary Lelito and Republican Stephen Miller. It is reasonable to visualize Lelito being tutored by fellow-Democrats Ellison and Drinkwine about the several layers of procedures and relationships needed to get things done. Miller would be similarly coached by fellow-Republicans Ginotti and Andrzejak. That tutoring may occasionally take the form of urging the newcomer to vote yes or no on a given issue, based on differing interpretations of pertinent facts.
All quite routine and appropriate.
The picture becomes distorted if, say, Ellison "pulls rank" on Lelito, or if a Democrat State Rep or Democrat County Commissioner urges Lelito not to vote in concert with those GOPers on the other side of the table, or to suggest that taking a different position from Ellison's on the I75/Lincoln Bridge matter is being disloyal to the Party.
The fact that Lelito changed his vote on the Ice Arena Committee has generated more than the usual speculation that undue political pressure is affecting the debate. On his part, the new commissioner told VersagiVoice, "I changed my vote about the Ice Arena Committee because I studied the issue more thoroughly between the first and second reading. I will vote on each issue based on what I learn about it."
Next week, I'll look at the fear that Administration/Commission tension has morphed into dissension. -- FJV: 10 May 2006
Part 2 of 3 --
Has
Commission/Administration tension morphed into dissension?
The introduction to last week's mini-essay about the effect, if any, of partisan
politics on city commission deliberations mentioned the right and the left
sides of the commission table. My conclusion is that partisan voting is a
factor a bit more than I thought but much less than the cynical city hall
observers would have us believe.
One reader actively involved in Ice Arena affairs writes: "I don't think politics, on a party level, played into the arena matter. 'Politics' is a general word that applies to any behind-the-scenes activity that might involve different interested groups. The Royal Oak City Commission has stayed pretty party-affiliated-free in their performance while dealing with the issues before them. It will really go in the potty if true partisan politics enters the local process."
At times it seems the right side, specifically Commissioners Andrzejak and Ginotti, find occasion to phrase their questions and comments in such a way as to appear they are taking pot-shots at City Manager Tom Hoover. Less often and less aggressively, Commissioners Capello and Drinkwine seem to challenge Hoover from the left side of the table. Both sides of the table spoke more stridently than usual, except in budget discussions, during the Ice Arena Committee debate. The question here becomes what, if not Democrat/Republican partisanship, generates such off-focus behavior? Consider:
Not always visible -- and seldom affecting voting -- there is some personal animosity operating on this commission. In that regard, about the occasional shouted exchanges between Drinkwine and Ginotti: Some observers attribute them to volatile temperaments simply debating issues; other maintain that the two commissioners really dislike each other.
Staff -- department heads standing at the lectern behind the commission table -- occasionally show remarkable patience at the inattention of commissioners who seem not to have read their Friday packets or who have talked to staff previously, only to posture by posing the same questions in open meetings. Patience, yes, but tension shows too.
Talk to city hall employees other than department heads: some commissioners are liked; some are feared; some are detested. Notice, though, that the fondness-to-hate spectrum of feelings varies from employee to employee and from official to official.
One or two elected officials will probably choose not to run for re-election; a couple will run again; and some are looking to run for mayor or other higher office. City hall observers differ about whether specific officials are focused more on a political career or on serving their constituents.
Mature elected and appointed officials and employees will guard against letting party affiliations or personal dislikes or future political aspirations move them off-focus, and citizens should watch for such behavior, especially with budget deliberations coming up.
Most of what has been said in this mini-essay could have been said about previous commissions, because characteristic human dynamics develop in any group activity. The uniqueness here is that there are those on the current commission for whom Tom Hoover was not their preference among the candidates for city manager, and there are those city hall observers who think they see that disappointment coloring some of the commission dialogue and, worse, seeping through city hall -- converting normal, expected tension into dissension.
All this pondering has been caused by the unseemly shape of what should have been a routine, even trivial, debate over whether an Ice Arena Committee should be re-created. Instead, it seems that the behavior of excited and enthusiastic parents, coaches, and city commissioners, with widely divergent points of view, led to a breakdown in the governmental chain-of-command -- about which, more next week. -- 17 May 2006
Part 3 of 3 --
What's it all about?
Debate about "Should the Ice Arena
Committee be re-created?" includes a large emotional component, so it
would be unkind and dismissive to label the debate a tempest in a teapot.
That
emotional component has led to devoting excessive time and effort to what would otherwise be a routine deliberation by the city
commission. Without identifying nine sources, here is how the situation looks
to someone who has no interest in hockey (I almost wrote
"soccer" here.") and who has no idea whether a
committee is needed.
Over time, after the previous Ice Arena Committee was disbanded, differences of opinion developed among coaches and parents and players about the management of the city-owned facilities and about the competence and attitude of the paid manager.
It was that core of dissatisfied association members who wanted changes in policies about such details as ice time and travel. Outsiders, other associations, were routinely turned away so that ice time remained available exclusively for ROHA members.
That split opinion was not, however, reflected in the makeup of the Board, even after an election.
The pressure on the paid exec became severe enough that he asked a city official to consider re-establishing the committee. Nothing happened.
Some interested parties brought the matter to the attention of the city commission.
Two or three of the city commissioners -- apparently attempting to serve those constituents who had reached out to them -- communicated directly with the director, who provided them with background, oral and written.
The director was surprised to see the matter appear on the commission agenda.
At the first reading of the proposed ordinance to re-establish the committee, the matter of chain-of-command arose, and the city manager felt it necessary to remind the commission about protocol re relationships between the legislative and executive branches of local government, after discussion had twice been postponed at the request of an ill commissioner. See the commission meeting reports from April forward.
During the commission's debate, different commissioners changed their mind about the need for the committee or about the competence of the director.
The director is said to be uncomfortable that the matter has become a political issue, and he asks only that ice arena expertise be available to him, either from volunteers or from the Administration.
The commission instructed the city manager to study the overall Ice Arena matter and come back with a report (and recommendations?) in six months.
Having written all that, I've changed my mind: This is a tempest in a teapot. And a large percentage of the emotional component mentioned above has to do less with the need or not for a committee and more with partisan politics and personal animosity and the legislative/executive dissension discussed in parts 1 and 2 of this mini-series. One hopes our elected and appointed officials are in better form as they address the city budget. -- 24 May 2006