Transparency in Government

Also see Less Government, Please     And see Civics 101

Ninth in a series on transparency in government
More transparency means less suspicion
With budget talk again coming into view, too many citizens are too ready to suspect skullduggery when matters move slowly or when they can't determine who the players are and what is motivating those players. At time like this, the existence of those dozens of volunteer but official committees, boards, and commissions comes under scrutiny. Meetings of major entities, like the Planning Commission and the Zoning Board of Appeals, are televised live and replayed several times on WROK.

The meetings of most of those miscellaneous committees, boards, and commissions are posted on the city's website, but not many citizens attend those meetings. That means that the only way interested residents can learn what goes on is to read the minutes. Unfortunately, for reasons ranging from laziness to informal inattention, minutes are hard to come by. The city's website tries to post agendas and minutes for all these civic/political entities, but those entities are less than zealous about providing information to the website. Below, for example, is a recent sampling of "Meeting Minutes & Agendas."

Shortage of staff in these troubled financial times partially explains the lack of timely reports out of these governmental entities, but one suspects that a bit more nudging by the city commission might generate a burst of catch-up activity -- even if the assigned city liaison can't attend or hasn't the time to serve as secretary. Guided and prodded, volunteers can be made responsible for getting agendas and minutes to the website.

More transparency means less suspicion.

Eighth in a series on transparency in government
Meeting behind-the-scenes sometimes makes sense
On the one hand, it is wasteful when city commissioners seem not to have spoken to each other between commission meetings, then have to work out fairly fundamental stuff at the table -- leading to v-e-r-y long sessions. On the other hand, citizens will properly complain if it becomes obvious that the commission meetings are simply reporting sessions, formalizing publicly what has been decided privately.

Between those extremes lies room for concern and suspicion. Unavoidably -- necessarily -- elected and appointed city officials will talk to and meet with residents, developers, interested parties, each other about any important issue they are addressing. It would be irresponsible not to do this kind of homework. It may well develop that such background encounters, without in any way being unethical or illegal, lead to consensus which is then played out at a public meeting. It is understandable, though, that citizens suspect favoritism or deviousness or, even, corruption when this or that official, no matter how well-informed and respected,  becomes too cavalier about doing most of his/her work "in the background" or when easily identifiable clusters of officials and citizens meet regularly behind the scenes.

Much of what has been said here applies, of course, to the deliberations of all city-established commissions, committees, sub-committees, and boards.  -- Dec 2005

Seventh in a series on transparency in government
 Obsession with official secrecy called 'the British disease'
 4000 requests were made within the first month after Great Britain enacted its Freedom of Information Act. The requests covered everything from stripping the Bank of England of certain powers, through lobbying over a pending communications bill by Robert Murdoch, to the names of Tony Blair's dinner guests.

Under the act, anyone, of any nationality, living anywhere in the world, is able to request information -- and expect an answer within 20 working days, usually free except for cost of copying, printing, and postage. The usual exemptions -- national security, personal data, court records, information re: legal privilege -- exist, and an ombudsman of sorts has been established to handle appeals. The law makes it a criminal offense to destroy data for which a valid request has been made under the act.

All in all, a real breakthrough for a country where authoritative commentators  have described an obsession with official secrecy as "the British disease."

Sixth in a series on transparency in government
 Germany comes late to the party. Sunshine Week presentation disappoints
 Coming late to the party, Germany is considering a freedom of information bill. And, reports The Economist, "pressure for transparency may rise after revelations that many members of parliament are aid on the side by big German companies. . . . German bureaucracy is still culturally wedded to official secrecy going back to a time when officials were accountable only to the sovereign and nobody thought governmental agencies   rally worked for citizens." Some German states have their own transparency rules, but not the federal government.

Closer to home, serious questions have been raised about allegedly private meetings of Michigan's Liquor Control Commission and the Michigan Beer & Wine Wholesalers Association. The issue -- conflict between the wholesalers and Northwestern Airlines over where and how Northwest may purchase beer and wine for its flights -- is unimportant. The apparently secret meeting is important, especially since commission chairwoman Nida Samona is reported as contending that the quorum gathering of the LCC was merely hearing the opinions of the wholesalers. That is not governmental transparency. 

A "Sunshine Week" public meeting sponsored by the League of Women Voters -- Oakland County proved disappointing. Opening comments by three panelists provided no practical tools for getting information from government, other than superficial generalities like, "Don't take no for an answer" and "Every president has tried to limit access to the press." Instead, the panelists -- and early questions/comments from the audience seemed focused on denigrating the current federal Administration. No sunshine there, an opportunity lost.  14 March 2005

Fifth in a series on transparency in government
 The push for transparency began in the '80s
(From a letter by Frank Versagi published in the Daily Tribune)

About that disagreement between Royal Oak's Mayor Stocker and School Board President Kent Schultz: Stocker is right.

Elected and appointed officials understandably prefer to meet without citizens in attendance, not always because officials have something to hide. Residents too often come to public meetings full of emotion and empty of information, and the officials can't operate as efficiently as when they meet privately. But Inefficiency in government is one of the prices we pay for freedom.

If Schultz is legally correct that meetings of advisory groups are not subject to the Open Meetings Act, then the Act should be amended to cover such meetings.

Far too often in such advisory settings and in non-quorum gatherings and in "fact-finding" subcommittees, public servants develop the agendas they intend to implement officially later, using parliamentary protocol to restrict participation by those unfamiliar with such procedures. Even when public hearings are mandated by law, it is not unusual for civil servants to go through the pretense of listening to interested parties, then to proceed with the initiatives they had decided upon before the public hearings.*

Open meetings for all public business should be the ideal. That need not mean that the citizens should have the right to speak at every meeting. They can make themselves heard later by talking to neighbors and politicians and writing letters and generating petitions. 

About governmental activities, residents don't always know best, but they always have the right to know.

* Currently, there is the irony and the paradox of frequently holding public hearings about lot splits, after the requisite approvals have already been granted by Administration Staff. It's hard not to suspect the Commission of posturing to impress those residents who oppose the lot split, since by then the Commissioners know they have no legal ground to deny the request.

Fourth in a series on transparency in government
 Who’s unionized and who’s not?
In July, 2003, then-City Manager Larry Doyle provided the following answer to VersagiVoice’s question: “Are ALL city employees other than department heads unionized?”  

The only employees not covered by a collective bargaining agreement are the four appointed officials (City Manager, Finance Director, City Clerk, City Attorney), and seven other employees who are classified as Confidential Personnel. Those positions are Human Resource Specialist, Internal Auditor/Budget Analyst, Police Records Supervisor, and four secretary positions. Lastly, the employees of the 44th District Court are not covered by a collective bargaining agreement, but they are not considered city employees.

Since then, such developments as the unionization of City Attorney subordinates, controversy about job protection for Fire Fighters, an increasingly activist new City Commission, and the budget battle caused VersagiVoice to ask Royal Oak Human Resources Director, Ed Williams, “Does that paragraph reflect current employee status?”

“No,” Williams answered, and provided the following update. [Boldface is Voice's.]

The seven confidential positions are now part of the Professional/Technical bargaining unit.

There are eight Executive Department Heads (Police Chief, Fire Chief, Human Resource Director, City Clerk, City Assessor, City Treasurer, Ice Arena Director, and the Director of Recreation and Public Services) who are not unionized, and three appointees (City Manager, City Attorney and Finance Director) who are not unionized. These are the only non-union positions in the City.  

All other employees -- except part-time employees -- belong to one of the following ten unions:

1.     AFSCME (clerical)

 2.     Professional/Technical Association (Accountants, Engineers, Planner, Programmer Analysts, etc.)

 3.     Department Heads/Deputies (all Deputy or Assistant Department Heads plus some department heads as approved by the Michigan Employee Relations Commission in 1992 as follows: Building Official, City Engineer, Planning Director, Library Director, and Information Systems Manager.)

 4.     SEIU (DPS workers)

 5.     DPS Supervisors

 6.     Teamsters (attorneys)

 7.     Police Officers Association (Police Officers, Dispatchers and part time Parking Enforcement Officers)

 8.     Command Officers (Police Sergeants & Lieutenants)

 9.     Detectives

 10.    Fire Fighters Association (all Fire personnel except the Chief)

The 44th District Court is not unionized, but technically are not city employees.

09 June 2004

Third in an occasional series on transparency in government -- 
 Caught trying to pull a fast one
During a meeting of the Royal Oak Charter Review Committee on which I serve, I was reminded how mistaken it is to believe that private sector practices can unthinkingly be transferred to the public sector.

Staff was requested to create a 100-word statement which needs the committee's approval before being sent forward. There is time-pressure, so I suggested we speed things up by voting by fax or email -- a technique often used by boards and committees of businesses and of nonprofit, volunteer, organizations.

But, I was quickly informed, such voting would violate the Open Meetings Act.

So, there I was, an advocate of transparency in government, suggesting a process which some residents could/would consider less than transparent, even sneaky.

Live and learn.

FJV
04 June 2004

Second in an occasional series -- 
Good government is transparent, not opaque; open, not hidden 
By way of introduction:
Some residents, congenitally suspicious, see conspiracy everywhere, and it is usually safe to ignore them unless they can substantiate their suspicions. For example, mayors as temperamentally different as Cowan and Urich were suspected of using their position to favor or disfavor this or that developer. Those who don't like Cowan had a picnic condemning him, after he left office, for serving as legal counsel for an unpopular business owner.

And, while Voice worries about micromanaging when commissioners get excessively involved in Administration operations, these suspicious souls worry about the possibility of deals being made and they are uncomfortable when elected officials spend time with appointed officials. 
=====

Not long after the November 2003 election, City Hall observers began reporting that two of the newly elected commissioners were spending hours and days visiting departments, talking to department heads and subordinates. The observers fall into two groups: one maintains that the new commissioners were doing a good job of becoming familiar with city government; the second group  suggests that the two new commissioners are engaged in inappropriate interference, less than transparent, in Administration operations, in violation of the City Charter.

And the city employees have two reactions:

Individuals within the Administration had/have their own preferences/biases. For one thing, Voice has heard resentment that the two "bothersome" commissioners "are both retired and must have a lot of time on their hands."  For another, one commissioner is characterized as naively thinking that private sector procedures and policies can readily and properly be applied to the public sector, and the other commissioner is often described as a "bulldog" who intentionally or not is perceived as intimidating during one-on-one encounters who enjoys working behind the scenes to convert prospective 4-3 votes to 3-4 votes.

Voice readers who are also city hall observers have already identified the two commissioners whose activities are described above: Pat Capello and Terry Drinkwine.

About Capello, one anecdote demonstrates perfectly how differently the same incident is viewed by residents. The city's rat problem had been brought to the attention of the previous City Commission but nothing was done, say Capello admirers. "Then she spent three hours coaching Kelly Winters about how to develop a solution. That is dedication; that is community service," is the way one resident puts it. "She wasn't talking about how to get rid of rats but of how to set up a program to do it," maintains another.

Those who disagree comment with some mixture of, "Please don't tell me that the city's chief code official needed to be told how to get rid of rats." and "Are we looking forward to Capello's long visits concerned with dog poop, lot splits, vacating alleys, golf course maintenance, radio tower location . . . ?" That resident was on a roll. 

A similar mixture of praise and criticism is gathering around Terry Drinkwine. The praise: He was instrumental in reaching a city/police department labor agreement after years of failure ("stalling," say more than one resident) . . . He speaks directly; you always know where he stands . . . He considers nothing sacred, nothing or nobody is beyond questioning . . .  He was a major factor in "creating the opening to get a new City Manager for these critical times."

The criticism: (By way of preamble, while commenting on the 2003 political campaign Voice said something to the effect that "Drinkwine will win or lose for the same reason," alluding to his blunt manner. So it is not coincidental that the criticism is a mirror image of the praise.)

Drinkwine is a former police officer and union leader. Expected to bring  broader perspective and cooler judgment into the collective bargaining dialogue, he instead began a campaign to oust Police Chief Quisenberry (using the term "mercenary" even though "60-80% of the police force lives elsewhere than in Royal Oak") . . . Yes, he speaks directly, bluntly, even when he doesn't know what he is talking about . . . Yes, Drinkwine was a major factor in the City Manager situation. He led the drive to order City Manager Doyle to fire Quisenberry or to be fired himself. (Doyle "resigned," and "Quisenberry's job is now his to lose," Voice has been told.)

By email, Voice alerted Capello and Drinkwine to concerns of some -- in and out of City Hall -- that they were spending an unusual amount of time at City Hall (this was months before Budget work began), and Voice asked them to express their philosophy of public service -- in writing or through interview, individually or together, as they preferred.

Both chose not to engage in any dialogue about their early City Hall visits. By return-email, Capello gently chided that someone must be playing a joke on me, and Drinkwine characteristically used a mild cuss-word in his 2-sentence reply.

Commissioners openly visiting City Hall is transparent enough, one would think. But, counter the conspiracy-minded, "What trade-offs were made? Who was promised what?" 

I guess we'll have to watch City Commission meetings for clues: patterns of decision-making, patterns of issues favored or disfavored, disagreements, the tone of the dialogue, and the like.

FJV
28 May 2004

First in an occasional series -- 
Good government is transparent, not opaque; open, not hidden
Open budget study sessions are an excellent example of transparent government. Whether sitting in or watching on public access television, a resident can hear and see the budget numbers; can listen to commissioners ask questions and to department heads make their case; can form opinions about the preferences or antipathies of the participants; can tell whether an official is focusing on issues or on personalities.

It is unreasonable to expect that the commissioners won't occasionally discuss budget informally when they encounter each other at non-commission gatherings. Don't we all "talk shop" in such situations? Or that they won't occasionally phone one another or exchange emails about this or that issue that the commission is considering. That kind of communication qualifies as "homework," unless it becomes excessively focused on a contentious issue or is done in such a way as deliberately to prevent their colleagues from learning about their conversations.

An example of opaque government: Let's say that two or three commissioners happen to encounter each other at Leo's Coney Island, in the renovated Hilzinger Block Building on Main Street. It is certainly understandable that they might informally discuss public business as well as make small talk. Even if they have arranged to meet at Leo's to socialize -- after all, they probably knew each other before they became commissioners -- they might properly choose to compare notes about public business without violating either the letter or the spirit of open meetings laws.

If, however, while having their hot dogs they plot to force the resignation of another elected or appointed city official . . . 

What practitioners of opaque government have going for them is that it is hard to prove unethical, perhaps illegal, behavior. Sources who observe then privately describe questionable behavior by city officials are reluctant to be identified for the same reason that business owners seldom publicly identify themselves with complaints against code officials. In both instances, retribution is feared: A pending appointment to a city committee will fall through the cracks. The next reasonable request for a variance will be summarily rejected.

In VersagiVoice's next update, I'll show why what I term "micromanaging" is praised by some residents and how visits to City Hall by commissioners can lead either to transparent government or to opaque government.

FJV
25 May 2004
 [Return to Home Page]