Remember that The Ideal is always at infinity, unattainable in real life.
But keeping the ideal in mind helps guide the ship of state, as well as personal or corporate governance.

"Where do you come down?"
(This segment of VersagiVoice's Home Page will be left in place until after the November 8th Election.)

It has been suggested that, having charged the 42nd Royal Oak City Commission with "institutional cowardice," it would be cowardly of me to ignore the requests (demands, of some) that I reveal where I am coming down on candidates and ballot issues. Here's how I voted on my Absentee Ballot, and why.

For mayor: Jim Ellison
For commissioner: Carlo Ginotti, Gary Lelito, Steve Miller

Ellison and Ginotti have been members of the 42nd City Commission, which I have criticized (and praised) from its coming into office, so why do I want to keep them? 

Because, whether the millage passes or fails, the 43rd commission has a tough job ahead of it. Jointly with the newcomers, the incumbents will need less time to build institutional courage and to establish consensus. It will be an advantage that Ellison and Ginotti won't have to pass through a learning curve about the details of the budget problems. About non-budget matters I have agreed and disagreed with them. Both of them have shown a willingness to change their mind -- one mark of the reasonable man.

Of the four remaining candidates for commissioner, Lelito and Miller strike me as most prepared, now. When Lelito ran the first time, he wasn't ready.

YES
on Proposed Charter Amendments

As one of several individuals who serve on the Charter Review Committee, I urge approval of the proposed amendments. [See] One or two of the proposed amendments seem to give the city commission more authority over small financial matters, fees. How do I justify that increased authority, given my repeated criticism of the commission's handling of budget problems?

Functionally and financially, it is reasonable for any sitting commission to be directly responsible for adjusting charter-mandated fees as time passes and as the economic climate changes, no matter who sits on the commission.  

About placing the Finance Director under the City Manager, rather than having the position report to the City Commission: (1) A city commission is the legislative branch of local government; a finance director properly falls into the executive branch; (2) The city manager's job description holds the manager responsible for presenting the budget and monitoring its implementation; (3) Something like 98% of other cities that we individually sampled, in Michigan and around the country, place the finance director under the city manager; (4) The recent financial confusion in Royal Oak -- with money being unexpectedly found and debts surprisingly discovered -- occurred while the finance director was/is reporting to the city commission.

The other amendments are needed to bring the charter into compliance with State law.

NO 
on the Headlee Override to increase taxes

In my original 4-year Plan, I suggested passing a temporary tax increase. However, I said the voters should reject any proposed millage if the commission had not substantively addressed selling city assets or restructuring the administration. Reluctantly screening proposals for selling assets is not substantive. Depending on attrition and not filling temporarily empty positions is not restructuring. [See] 

A partial millage (Hoover had asked for 3 mills over 5 years) admittedly leaves a deficit, so the 43rd City Commission must make the same fundamental decisions about restructuring and selling assets whether the deficit is $3 million or $6 million.

Rejecting the millage should convince the incoming commission to stop dancing around the problems.

NO
on the School Bond
Give new Superintendent Moline time to mend fences
DISCLOSURE: Because I live among those 80 or so houses west of Woodward and south of Lincoln which are mistakenly considered in Huntington Woods, I pay Berkley school taxes and will not be affected by passage of the Royal Oak School Bond.
Further disclosure: Over the years, I served on the 1997 Facilities Consolidation Task Force; worked with Jim Dresbach on a Marketing Industry Advisory Committee; spoke on the profit-motive to students at Kimball High and at Northwood Elementary; my wife and I addressed an in-service session at Kimball; my wife and I currently work two days a week in Churchill Community Center, where the Royal Oak School District cooperates with the Royal Oak Historical Society to house the society's museum. In the broader education arena, I have served on Industry Advisory Committees at Oakland Community College, Macomb Community College, and Purdue University.

Three-to-one, letters to the editor are pro-bond. In street-talk, however, it's more like 1-to-1. One suspects that street-talk would show a heavier anti- momentum, were it not for the reluctance of many who question the bond to be accused of being anti-kid, anti-education, anti-future, anti-, anti-, anti-. I have deliberately added an emotional tone to this paragraph to reflect the temper out there.

Until attending the 19 October SOS meeting, I was undecided about the bond, using the excuse that I needn't make a decision because I can't vote on it anyway. At that meeting, I concluded that, while there is anger on both sides, it is mostly  pro-bond people who exhibit arrogance, condescension, incivility. The words "lying" or "liars" were voiced by pro-bond people and are used often by them in letters to the editor; the former Soviet Union citizen who speaks with a Russian accent reported being denigrated during a school board meeting by being told to "think in rubles"; there was no attempt to rebut or refute his report; at a later Royal Oak civic gathering, a pro-bonder said of SOS members that "those people don't attend events like this."

Their disagreement over numbers/dollars -- about air conditioning, for example -- can be recognized  by outsiders as simply reflecting biased interpretation of terms. Even there, however, the "are you really listening?" problem arose. A maintenance worker with the school district was doing an excellent job of explaining from his point of view the need to replace piping, to add chillers, the whole hvac bit. At one point, as he explained how the same hvac unit in a classroom can serve both heating and cooling needs, I -- who have served hvac clients for 30 years -- asked a technical question because I thought one of his answers would be misunderstood. His irritated and dismissive reply: "I'm not an engineer."

One last point. A pro-bonder has explained to me that "when you do the math," the effect of passing the bond will be "a net increase of only 1 mill." When I suggested that if that is true there has been a critical failure to communicate, because even attentive voters haven't heard that argument, he agreed that better communication would have helped.

Speaking of attentive voters, the fact that this late in the game I -- having for months monitored both sides -- was still undecided suggests that the school community has not made its case and that mutual anger is preventing dispassionate dialogue. "If this millage passes, the 'hold harmless' millage is dead," reflects the attitude out there. The "hold harmless" vote is scheduled for May 2006.

In his coffee conversation with me at Hagelstein's Bakery [See], Dr. Moline, showed that he has picked up on the "heartache" in the community as he goes about "developing affinities." Moline is optimistic in sensing an "emerging wisdom" about all this, and I suspect his newness and mindset may well help diminish habitual anger and enlarge that emerging wisdom, given enough time.

To give him that time and that challenge I would vote no, if I could vote. -- 30 Oct 05

Pretend-Candidate Versagi's 3-plank platform

I have written thousands of words commenting about Royal Oak's financial situation. VersagiVoice began covering budget issues in 2003. Budget problems remained troublesome through 2004. [See]

In July 2005, concerned that the city commission seemed to be dancing around tough decisions for the third fiscal year in a row, I proposed a 4-year plan which urged the commission to simultaneously (1) seek a temporary tax increase; (2) sell some city assets; and (3) restructure the city administration. That plan has been praised and criticized.

Challenged by readers to be even more specific, I assumed the role of a pretend-candidate for city commissioner, and for several weeks I have been publicly developing my "platform."  Here, I summarize the three major planks in that platform. (Four people, including Gayle Chinn, have told me they would vote for me if I were really running. Talk about a landslide/mandate!)

Plank One: Sell Normandy Oaks Golf Course
Use the money (get a deposit) to cancel layoffs, then explore the pluses and minuses of selling other green space. [See]

Objections

1. Once sold, green space is gone forever.

2. Public Comment makes it clear that voters object to selling green space.

3. Selling assets is a distress sale, a short-term solution.

My reply

1. When the city is once again financially flush, it can buy land and re-create green space. To those who complain that any new parks won't  be where they currently are, I reply, "Are you not willing to do anything to help solve the city's financial woes?"

2. Public Comment was loudly and vigorously opposed to widening Main Street, but the commission wisely ignored those protests. It would have been irresponsible for the city to forego the opportunity to have the Feds pay 80% of the cost of all the infrastructure improvement which will result from that project. 

3. Enacting a "3-year" millage is also a short-term solution -- assuming the city doesn't ask for renewal. Converting little-used spaces to revenue-generators provides long-term benefits. 

A desirable short-term effect will be that layoffs may be avoided. Priority question: Save jobs or play golf?

Plank Two: Retain a consultant to address restructuring, to look primarily at Police, Fire, and DPS. Simultaneously, in collaboration with the consultant or separately, examine all the other departments. 

Objections

1. Restructuring is unnecessarily disruptive. Demand a 15% across-the-board cut from every department.

2. Restructuring would be a short-term fix. We would be giving up services and departments which we will return to in better times.

My reply

1. What could be more "disruptive" than the low morale already generated by ongoing uncertainty? Across-the-board cuts -- intended to demonstrate objectivity and impartiality --are really a copout. If the organizational structure is part of the problem, punishing everyone equally is not fairness, it's lazy management.

2. Restructuring should be considered a permanent solution. Done properly, restructuring will not eliminate any departments or functions which cost-effectively and humanly belong in city government. If money becomes plentiful enough that future city leaders want again to spend on non-essential services, they should contract-out those services.

3. The commission has done no more than nibble at the edges of re-doing the city's organization chart.

Plank Three: Reject the proposed millage increase. 

Objections

1. It would be financially irresponsible for the city not to meet its obligation to balance the budget, and the budget cannot be balanced without the income from the proposed millage increase.

2. The city's quality of life would be negatively impacted.

3. The State might declare Royal Oak in Receivership. That would be embarrassing.

My reply

A simple narrative best addresses these objections:

Government, at all levels, continues to maintain that more money is the answer to whatever inconvenience arises . . . The proposed millage is still not enough to balance the budget . . .  The city has already proved financially incompetent, going now into this commission's third fiscal cycle . . .  This commission has simply not made its case for increased millage . . . So far, there have been only ambiguous suggestions about how the commission intends to cover the debt remaining even if the millage passes.

About Receivership: Royal Oak is in debt, not in structural collapse. If the budget isn't balanced, the State might line up a few city officials and shoot them, but Receivership is an unlikely scenario. At worst, going into Receivership for two or three years cannot be more embarrassing than the current image of a community on a development-roll, with obviously more tax revenue in its near future -- even with Headlee and A -- not being able to manage its finances . . . How can the quality-of-life issue stand on its own, without being labeled selfish on the part of those who would force all taxpayers to fund non-essential city services which satisfy the aesthetic or recreational wishes of a few?

In my original 4-year Plan, I suggested passing a temporary tax increase. However, I advised voters to reject any proposed millage if the commission had not substantively addressed selling city assets or restructuring the administration. Reluctantly screening proposals for selling assets is not substantive. Depending on attrition and not filling temporarily empty positions to cut expenses is not restructuring. [See] 

Some readers have requested -- demanded, really -- that I reveal how I intend to vote, given all the criticism that VersagiVoice has been tossing around for months.
I'll probably do that in the next update. 

Does 'Public Comment' serve democracy?
"The sorry fact is many voters are lazy, ignorant and don't know the definition of due diligence," maintains veteran Michigan political writer Tim Skubick, in an opinion piece asserting that Governor Granholm will be unfairly tagged with responsibility for economic woes over which she has no control, like the Delphi bankruptcy.

That's a bit sharper than my suggesting too many Royal Oak voters are uninformed and excessively emotional, but both comments make the point that elected officials must live with a public which is largely guilty of vincible ignorance. That is, those voters suffer from a lack of information which is attainable by reasonable diligence -- a little effort, if you please. [More]

About Restructuring -- 2

The Ideal
Retain a consulting firm and instruct them to focus primarily on restructuring Police, Fire, and the Department of Public Services -- the trio of departments hereafter referred to as P/F/D. Simultaneously, begin detailed exploration about eliminating or downsizing other departments. 

Considerations & Action Items
Whether or not at the behest of someone on the city commission, and even before I declared myself a pretend-candidate for commissioner, I have been challenged to offer specific recommendations about restructuring. 

I have not been alone in criticizing the commission for nibbling at the edges of restructuring. Others have urged individual commissioners, the mayor, the commission as a whole to take on one or two departments at a time and really examine them -- instead of making marginal decisions based on superficial overviews. Here is how I would start the process.

Disclosure:
If there is a city department which wife Muriel and I are biased in favor of, it's the Police Department. Both of us are graduates of the Citizens Police Academy.  Muriel served on the first Police Oversight Committee. Both of us were incensed at what we considered the discourteous and unprofessional treatment of Chief Quisenberry (and of Fire Chief Stroehlke) during public commission meetings. That said:

It sounds nice (and I have been guilty) to contend that Police and Fire cannot be touched, that Public Safety is the primary responsibility of every level of government. But, when P/F/D payrolls make up 80-plus percent of the general fund, those departments have to be looked at.

For all three departments: Examine staffing levels; renegotiate collective bargaining agreements; review, revise, combine job descriptions.

For Police and Fire: consolidate appropriate functions; cooperate with other communities; analyze functionally the ratio of civilians or paraprofessionals to professionals.

For DPS: Is Parks & Rec an "essential" service?  Should a cash-strapped city even have "Recreation" on its organization chart? What will be the effect on staffing levels if parks are sold? Can maintenance of public grounds be done cooperatively -- with the school district, with other cities? What is the cost-effect of contracting out maintenance?

Unless and until such matters are seriously examined (not necessarily "considered," just examined), we are making decisions based on feel, not facts.

I have previously made the case for downsizing or dissolving the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) In addition, if this pretend-candidate were elected, he would consider the following:

• Downsize the City Attorney office: Even at its current staffing level, we --  appropriately -- use outside counsel for special purposes. Think of spending, say, $250/hour for 500 hours on an outside lawyer. That's $125,000 -- once or twice a year, not an eternal annual payroll cost. A smaller City Attorney office can take care of routine city-related matters. 

• Privatize Human Resources or consolidate its functions: Some HR departments have hiring-firing authority and really are a formidable presence in the organizational structure; other HR departments serve an essentially secretarial, record-keeping function. Find out which description fits the city's HR department, and take appropriate action.

• Consolidate/Integrate Planning, Engineering, Building: These days when businesses are operating with home workers and with workers on other continents, it is not a valid objection to contend that current city hall configuration won't permit housing all three departments on the same floor! There is a common thread joining these three departments. Make use of that thread to reduce overall costs.

• Assessor's office: At first glance, not enough would be saved by outsourcing this function to make up for the loss of institutional knowledge about properties on the tax roll. Leave it be. I apply the same reasoning to Information Services.

• City Clerk's office: Expand it. It is understaffed for its permanent responsibilities. To the degree that makes sense, move departmental private secretaries, except the City Manager's, to that department. The counterargument is that it is next to impossible to cross-train everyone in the department. The answer, that I have implemented in business and in nonprofits, is to assign those private secretaries primarily to the department from which they came -- and to use their downtime (of which there is always some!) for general clerical, for which they can be readily cross-trained. 

• There are some quasi-essential services, like televised meetings. The world won't come to an end if I have to attend meetings rather than watch them from home, but a lack of that service would surely impact the "quality of life" of a bunch of us!

Part Two of my original 4-year Plan for Royal Oak describes a primer-level method for measuring the impact of changes, if a consultant is not used.

A valid objection to such suggestions as these is that we can't know how making substantial changes in Department A will affect Departments B, C. D, etc. 

To which I reply:
You can't know if you continue to conduct superficial overviews. 
You will know if you really study the functional/financial/human interrelationships among the departments. 

About selling city assets

The Ideal
Asset management means acquiring, maintaining, selling properties as appropriate, not holding on to everything forever.
Asset management requires short-term risk-taking to achieve long-term benefits.

Considerations
With a declining population (under 60,000) and a flat number of households (30,000), remaining Royal Oakers will suffer no measurable loss of lifestyle if 20-some of the 50-some parks (546 acres) were put on the tax base, converted to revenue-generators.

The city's overall track record as a landowner is not impressive, despite an occasional bright spot like the Lafayette Parking Structure. 

The "when it's gone, there's no getting it back" argument is scare tactic 101. Only a few years after a property changes hands or is modified, a frequent reaction is, "I can't remember what used to be there." Responsible officials, backed by caring citizens do have to take a risk now and then.

The "distress sale" argument is logically inconsistent and weak. What are assets for but to draw upon when necessary? Even the much-criticized school district is selling property.

Action items
1. At the very least, place the sale of Normandy Oaks Golf Course on the ballot for an advisory vote, thus getting voter input while leaving the final decision to the city commission. It has happened before that vigorous and organized public comment favoring or opposing some issue is not matched by the outcome of an election.

Selling the golf course provides cash to apply to short-term financial problems and several hundred thousand dollars of annual tax income in perpetuity.

2. "Dedicated" property can be undedicated. Appoint a citizens Task Team to do a cost-benefit-focused inventory of the city's green space, and use the functional-financial-human matrix to display the pluses and minuses of each possible sale. 

Macro micromanaging results from addressing matters which probably shouldn't be in front of the city commission in the first place.

Example: Public hearings for staff-approved lot splits, for which everyone knows there is no legal alternative, are scheduled to offer commissioners an opportunity to show their concern for the objections of residents who have already had the opportunity to voice those concerns in other city venues.

Micro micromanaging comes from the commission's insistence on doing what Boards of Directors call "committee work."

Example: The effectiveness of the Consent Agenda, which is a wise attempt to group routine matters for approval without table talk, is diminished by the insistence of this or that commissioner to take items off that agenda so they can be discussed.

Ideally, the commissioners should have seen the Consent Agenda in time to have asked questions about any item before coming to the table. If not, the item should be assigned to one commissioner to investigate and report about at the next commission meeting.

Just as the commission should have enough confidence in staff not to want to do committee work, so should the voters have enough confidence in commissioners not to insist that transparency in government means that the public must be aware of every conversation between an elected official and city staff. 

Action items
1. Retain a consultant with a track record of successfully reviewing and revising governmental operations.

2. At the same time as or before the consultant begins working, create three 2-commissioner Task Teams, with the re-elected or new mayor serving as liaison to all three. Assign city departments equally among the Task Teams, whose charge will be to review the functional and financial and human impacts of restructuring, whatever form it takes. For the most part, the consultant and the Task Teams will work independently.

Department personnel, management or subordinates, will not participate in these Task Team discussions. The consultant will be be dealing with individuals.

The mayor will conduct joint meetings attended by all the teams, to address the inevitable crossover impacts of these preliminary deliberations.

All this work can be considered work-sessions and need not be public, because individuals' employment and compensation status will be part of the dialog and can be accorded the same confidential status as collective bargaining. If this interpretation is challenged, the public can be invited to observe but not participate.

Properly focused, the Task Teams can complete their separate reviews in five 2-hour sessions over nine weeks, with two or three 90-minute plenary sessions during which they compare notes. The consultant should attend the last plenary session.

Once definite options have been formulated, those options will be agenda items for regular or special city commission meetings. -- 05 Oct 05

---

About this Quality of Life bit

The Ideal
The role of city government is to provide public safety and essential services, like police and fire protection and maintaining infrastructure and trash collection. Quality of Life services are non-essential and should be offered only when the city can afford them.

Action Item
Immediately eliminate every non-essential service which can legally/contractually be terminated. Reduce the number of non-essential services as quickly as possible.

When finances improve, as they inevitably will, don't replace every non-essential service which has been discontinued during bad times. Instead, replace only those non-essential services which (a) have not been taken up by the volunteer/private sector, the library, or the school district or (b) which the citizens have made clear they want.