For appointments to committees and boards --
Are younger residents being discouraged from applying?
Just under 200 volunteers serve Royal Oak on about 30 committees, boards, commissions, and authorities. [See Alphabetized list of volunteers]

Webster, Harrison, Capello, Sarnacki. Coincidentally or not, the souring political environment surrounding CITCOM seems to have served as a catalyst for increased questioning about the relatively recent appointments of these former city commissioners to the DDA, ZBA, and Library Board. Now and then over the years, VersagiVoice has answered a question about the appointment process. Now comes this correspondence.

I would like to get some background on how appointments to certain committees are made. Is there an unwritten pecking order or seniority system for certain committees? I ask because a former commissioner was tapped for the DDA, and more recently the library board. I don't have anything against them, and I'm sure they will do a good job, but it seems the city would encourage civic-minded citizens, particularly young people, to get involved rather than recycle the same people (Full disclosure: I have applied . . . ) It seems the mayor and commission are sending the message that positions on top committees are reserved for political insiders, and all others need not apply.

That request came after I had received similar questions from readers at all levels of civic involvement, from the inattentive to those serving on city panels. Frankly, the inattentive tend to manifest the judgmental temperament of the uninformed, rather than seek information. In the past, VersagiVoice answered each question as it arose. Given the current mood of the electorate, now is a useful time to present a longer overview which can be used as a reference source.

Both about appointments and about CITCOM behavior, we have residents, some whose names would be widely recognized, who say they fear "reprisal" if they are identified. What do they mean? They don't mean that they fear being attacked physically or having their house burned down. But, because such things have happened before, they fear being ignored or nudged out of one or more circles: social, civic, political, even vocational or professional. They fear being blackballed when they seek appointments or being procedurally removed from a city- related position they already have.

Some observations.
The alphabetized tabulation of volunteers contains mostly names which most VersagiVoice readers, even city hall watchers, will not recognize. Some are old-timers, some are newbies. The work of most of the panels is not of general interest, so any lists of "top committees' would vary widely depending on an observer's mindset. Some panels meet frequently, usually monthly; others meet on an as-needed basis. Every appointment must be approved by CITCOM, whether the recommendation comes from its own Appointments Committee, or the Mayor (Library Board), or the City Manager (DDA). Let's look at two committees:

Charter Review Committee
I, Frank Versagi, am the old-timer on the CRC. The other three volunteers are newcomers. Also onboard is the required city commissioner, currently Chuck Semchena. The chairman is a newcomer. The primary role of the old-timer is to provide institutional memory and to help the newcomers operate effectively without diminishing their participation or enthusiasm.

Historic District Study Committee
Ruth Cleaveland (spelled with an "a"), one of Royal Oak's leading historical preservationists, has been the chair of the HDSC for at least a decade, with one short interruption, so her name is widely recognized -- though frequently misspelled. One or two members are in their second term, and there are a couple of newbies. I (FJV) attend many HDSC meeting, but I am not a member.

Analyzing the city charter and working with the Lansing bureaucracy to help get homes designated historical are not topics which interest most residents. We who serve on those panels may consider our group a "top committee," but I doubt that the general public could get excited about our work. Speaking for the Charter Review Committee, we have the added happy or disappointing experience of having the voters accept or reject our work when our proposals appear on the ballot.

Summarizing: This or that "retread," recycled volunteer, may or may not owe their appointment(s) to some level of favoritism. Similarly, city hall observers can readily cite questionable motivations for past removal of a volunteer in mid-term. On balance, though, people -- newbie and retread -- are there because their interest and time and effort and dedication contribute to the work of their panel.

In a simultaneous request to the DDA's Kevin Kalczynski and the Library's Metta Lansdale, I mentioned that the names of former city commissioners Laura Harrison, Jeanne Sarnacki, and Patricia Capello -- whom I identified as "civic colleagues" of mine -- were being bandied as examples of the perceived problem. I asked the two leaders how they understand the appointment process and whether they have any authority to "veto" an appointment coming from city hall.

From DDA Chair Kevin Kalczynski

As I understand it, DDA board members are appointed as follows:

(1) potential board members submit their application to the City

(2) the City Manager chooses an applicant

(3) the City Commission votes yes or no on the City Manager's choice.

I have never had to research whether I or the DDA as a whole has the power to "veto" a duly appointed board member. However, I doubt that an appointed board or board member would have the authority to override the decision of elected officials. I have not lobbied the City Manager to select specific applicants and I do not know to what extent other DDA members or City Commissioners might offer input to the City Manager in making appointments. Finally, while two of the last three DDA appointees were former City Commissioners (Pete Webster and Pat Capello), the most recent appointee (Lisa Keebler), is new to the area.

From Library Director Metta Lansdale

I believe that Library Board appointments are made in much the same way that appointments to other boards are made. People in the community make their interest known by a city application where, among other things, candidates state which boards and committees they wish to serve. In the case of the Library Board, which is a little different from other boards, the Mayor selects candidates from that file when a vacancy comes up. Mayoral appointments to the library board are subject to the approval of the City Commission.

I do know that promising individuals in the community are sometimes approached with suggestions that they might apply to serve on this or that committee or board. I am sure that this approach comes sometimes from the city commission and sometimes from a library board member. I would certainly not hesitate to approach a promising member of the community to suggest they put their name in for such an appointment; I would not hesitate to make my recommendation known to the Mayor. I have suggested that library trustees consider who they know that might be good additions to the Library Board when we know that vacancies are coming up and to make their suggestions known to the Mayor. This is not unusual in cities and is advised so that the appointing body has a good pool of qualified applicants from which to make selections. In some communities good candidates may not consider library board service unless a direct approach is made. Smart public officials will prepare themselves this way so they can make good appointments when a vacancy – expected or unexpected – comes up. My observation is that Royal Oak has a very good process in place for soliciting and selecting residents for public service. The library board make-up is testament to this success; my personal opinion is that we have an excellent library board.

I certainly do not have veto power.

My take from your posed question is that this is a good time for city officials and others interested in the future of the city to put out a strong message encouraging capable young or new or newly retired residents to make their interests in public service known and precisely how to do this. The information is clear on the city website but unless a message is put out from time to time people will forget it is there or new residents may not think to look for it. Some may not even consider public service unless it is directly suggested to them. Communities handle this process differently and, again, Royal Oak’s process is an excellent one. New or prospective residents should feel encouraged by it.

It is easy to slide into the ‘cronyism’ you describe unless qualified residents are actively sought or expressing interest.

From former DDA member Ilene Hill
Young people came out of the woodwork when Jerry Dettloff was doing the Mainstreet program. They were excited and talented and eager to get involved. I think maybe too eager and it scared the administration. They want people in there who do not rock the boat or have a voice. Same old, same old!