CITCOM Micromanaging gone mad
Staff was directed to come up with a list of items as part of an overall plan to address at least one budget-related item on each CITCOM agenda for some indefinite period, I gather. Last week, after complaining that the list was confusing to read and demanding a rewrite, the commission argued about whether to hold a series of Special Meetings to focus attention on the list. The minority in favor of Special Meetings maintains that too many commissioners and the mayor are "sitting on their thumbs" and avoiding addressing financial shortfalls seriously. The majority counters that many of the items do not justify CITCOM attention, because they are operational matters, not policy matters. The 3-4 decision was not to schedule Special Meetings at this time.

Although I consider the entire exercise a waste of Staff time, I went through the list and labeled the 50-plus items as I would if I were on the commission: (a) Operational, (b) Policy, and (C), Not sure. VersagiVoice readers can find the entire list on the city's website. For the fun of it, they are invited to classify the following selections, presented here in no particular order:

Double-sided printing of computer printouts . . . Refill printer cartridges . . . Sell advertising on non-emergency vehicles and the website . . . Bill all departments separately for postage . . . Move the pension system to the Michigan Employees Retirement System . . . Cost allocation study . . . Millage Increase . . . Hybrid vehicles . . . College Intern program . . . Police Department shifts . . .

In my mind, two-thirds of the 50-plus items are operational. The rest can be brought up one-at-a-time at regular CITCOM meetings -- on the condition that discussion is limited to 15 minutes. If more time is needed, then schedule a Special Meeting for that item only. -- Nov 2008

Micromanaging in the 19th Century
Although the term hadn't yet evolved, the danger of legislative micromanaging was already a concern for 19th Century political thinkers. In more formal language than used today, here is an excerpt from Chapter 6 of John Stuart Mill's Representative Government:

Excerpts from a letter published in the 18 July 2004 issue of the Detroit Free Press
Michigan Chamber of Commerce, Association of Realtors see local micromanaging as a disincentive for 'cool cities':
The government's best bet to encourage cool cities is to educate municipal leaders, give them the knowledge to make the right decisions and then invite the private sector to go to work.

Michigan is a home rule state. This means that public officials who oversee local municipalities are responsible for creating the master plans, zoning rules and regulations, and the various capital improvement programs that make up the overall framework within which development projects occur.

Within the current framework of local government, it is not uncommon for home rule government officials to micromanage a project and add greatly to its expense. This slows the process and puts undue burden on developers. Developers, realtors, doctors, dentists, churches or any others who have an idea to legally utilize their land do not deserve the extra cost, time, and aggravation of such micromanagement. 

. . . A primary focus of home rule should include plans for higher density alternatives to large log, low-density development, allowing for such things as mixed uses, compact designs, and walkable communities.

The letter from which the above paragraphs were extracted was signed by Gil White, president of Michigan Association of Realtors and Jim Barret, president and chief executive officer of Michigan Chamber of Commerce.

Is it micromanaging
when the City Commission responds to a citizen complaint against a city department?
Well, that depends.

Recently, a resident complained during Public Comment about being offended by what he considers rude and abusive treatment by a Magistrate. The mayor quietly assured the citizen that the matter would be looked into. That seems reasonable enough, especially because the citizen is a widely respected civic activist and volunteer with no record of chronic complaining.

Let's turn to the more complex and more frequent complaints made against Code Enforcement. The complexity comes from . . . 

 . . . the fact that residents and business owners are less likely to complain publicly, because they fear reprisal or denials of future requests for consideration;

. . . the fact that the issues can vary from letting one's grass grow too long, to being required to move a dumpster a few feet, to the need, or not, for a sprinkler;

. . . the fact that -- chronic complainers aside -- individuals of widely differing temperament and sophistication make similar complaints about procedures and about specific Code Enforcement personnel;

. . . the fact that some past and present mayors and commissioners have asserted that business owners, especially, are so accustomed to making their own decisions that they become irritated, frustrated, unreasonable when they must follow procedure and meet standards;

. . . the fact that there are those residents who like micromanaging, who want their mayor and commissioners to jump, to take -- or seem to take -- immediate action about any and every complaint brought before the commission;

. . . the fact that Code Enforcement, or Planning, or Zoning are caught in the middle: If they insist on the rules and procedures, they are criticized for being nit-picking bureaucrats. If they exercise judgment and grant a variance, they are accused of favoritism.

Okay, so monitoring Code Enforcement is more complex than following up on a rare complaint about a Magistrate. How do we distinguish between micromanaging and reasonable oversight?

* It is micromanaging for a commissioner to directly investigate every citizen complaint by making phone calls, sending emails, visiting the pertinent  department.

* It is reasonable oversight to instruct the City Manager or other paid Staff to relay the complaint to the appropriate individual or department and to request a reply -- to the citizen or to the commissioner or to both, as appropriate -- after a sensible amount of time.

* It is dereliction of duty to avoid confronting repetitive complaints, over months and years, about specific city employees -- using union rules or the gender or race of the individuals as an excuse for inaction.

Two hours talking about dog poop?
This is good government?
This is how our City Commissioners demonstrate their concern for residents?
Please.

If ever there was an issue which appropriately should be handled at the paid staff level, dog parks qualify. If either an ordinance or a resolution requires public hearings about such matters, it should be repealed or modified.

Then there is the issue itself. Parks are for people, not for dogs. Grass is for children to play on, not for dogs to defecate in. How misanthropic is the mind that answers, "No one has been bitten," when told that children and elderly have been frightened by one's unleashed pet? How uncaring is the predisposition which considers trivial the complaints of nearby homeowners about the noise, the smell?

Even if Royal Oak weren't experiencing financial problems, dog-lovers should find and fund their own dog-runs and not expect taxpayers to pay for or subsidize the camaraderie  they repeatedly boasted about during the marathon public hearing.

In a too-frequent display of lack of courage, the City Commission implemented still another "moratorium," hoping the issue goes away, I assume. Those of us who like dogs only at a distance, though, are hoping that Royal Oak's dog-loving residents buy some land (one of the other dog parks?) and convert it to a privately owned and operated facility.

Return all those city parks which have gone to the dogs -- to the people.

Frank Versagi
June 2003

It all began with Barbara Hallman?
Why does the City Commission do Staff work?
Wearing my management consultant's hat, I am frequently dismayed when the City Commission does Staff work, micromanages.

The latest example was a hearing concerned with splitting a lot. The merits of the decision aside, here were legislators taking time to discuss setbacks and landscaping and cisterns and house sizes--all of which are covered by ordinances and City agencies and monitored daily by paid Staff.

True, the City Charter assigns ultimate responsibility for all these matters to the City Commission, but delegating to and monitoring the performance of competent and dedicated public employees is certainly a better way to manage.

Why do legislators become publicly involved in minute details? "It all began with [the late Mayor] Barbara Hallman," I've been told by a couple of old-timers. Her emphasis on beautification and on neighborhoods took the form of demonstrating concern for residents during Commission meetings.

I recall one session years ago when the Commission debated whether trees should be sprayed for mosquitoes on Tuesday or Thursday!

With the current City Commission, one quickly loses count at how many times certain commissioners find occasion to proclaim their "concern" for "residents" and "neighborhoods."

All of which can be accomplished by a City Hall Staff which impresses me as above average in serving the public.

Also see City Hall 

Micromanaging:
"It all began with Barbara Hallman."

2 Hours talking Dog Poop?

When a citizen complains

Micromanaging: a disincentive?

Micromanagement in the 19th century