"Keep your eye on the ball," but Pay Attention to The Rules of the Game

At the February City Council meeting, his last one on TV, outgoing City Manager Rich Rising delivered a farewell address, his parting words after fifteen years of service in Geneva City government. You can read the entire statement here.

Rising began his reflections on City government with the assertion that “the ends don’t justify the means,” meaning, of course, that unwholesome practices can’t be tolerated just because things ‘turn out okay’. We couldn’t agree more.

All too often, people justify not doing the right thing with an appeal to the positive consequences they think will follow, or the negative consequences they are trying to avoid. For instance, telling a lie and trying to explain it away by saying that it was necessary for a greater good.

That kind of reasoning-- saying that the ends do justify the means-- is called consequentialism. A ‘consequentialist’ will say that any action is okay if it produces the desired outcome. We agree with Rising’s opening statement that consequentialism is bad for government. It’s even worse when consequentialism is paired with back room decision-making, which it usually is.

An example of the negative impact of consequentialist decision-making in government can be seen on the federal level when legislators attach narrow special interest bills onto larger spending legislation. When the spending bill passes, dollars are signed over without much public notice, except back in the home district where it is touted with great fanfare. Such efforts, sometimes called ‘riders’ are often used to promote projects that wouldn’t survive a lot of public scrutiny. The conservative Heritage Foundation tracks these bills and offers their own fact-based point of view on the matter. We don’t necessarily agree with all the particulars, but we think they get the general idea right. You can read it for yourself here. Members of Congress who get these add-ons to spending bills might say, “Well, look, my district needs this project. The money will be put to good use. If I have to attach it to a bill that funds the troops, it’s OK.” But, is it?
It’s not up to No Strings Geneva to assess the private morality of public officials, but everyone has the right and responsibility to assess the way public officials make public decisions. And herein lies the importance of that word enemies of open government dread: process. Process equals protection. Simply put, there is a right way and a wrong way to do things, such as:

• Holding public hearings. On the Geneva City Council it was common practice for public hearings on a proposal to be held five minutes before the vote. At the urging of Capraro, Council now separates the scheduling of a public hearing from the vote on the resolution, giving at least the appearance that what was raised at the public hearing might matter and that Council would look further into points raised by the public before casting their vote.
• Following the Open Meetings Law. The City Attorney and City Manager used to use the catch-all phrases: personnel, or sale or lease of city property, as the reason for closing the door on the public. Now Council is requiring a list of particular agenda items for executive session, as the law requires.
• Avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. Conflicts of interest need to be avoided no matter how convenient it might be to ignore them.

Creating—and adhering to—process, is in the public interest. It protects everyone. It gives the public a safeguard. It even protects government officials. It keeps their dealings out in the open, where they are more predictable, more susceptible to sound reasoning, and responsible to fact sets. Developers, or others, doing business with the government, are protected from public suspicion and are guaranteed fair treatment if standard processes are followed. It keeps everything on the up and up.

Following the law, such as the New York State Open Meetings Law, and being consistent in decision-making are the right thing to do regardless of what might be the end product (although we believe that a good process will yield a good outcome!).

Unfortunately, it seems that Rising had a change of heart while composing his statement. He took back what he had said at the beginning. Specifically, he wrapped things up by saying :

“But, how we conduct ourselves is how we govern; not necessarily why we govern or what we are trying to achieve. It is important to keep your eye on the ball and focus on achieving real community goals. That’s how the community will measure our success--what we produce is at least as important, if not more important, than how we produced it.”

Wait a second! First he says the ends don’t justify the means, and then he says what we produce [the ends] might be more important than how we produce it [the means]. That’s a contradiction. And when critiquing the performance of public officials, we call it doublespeak.

Think of it this way: Imagine you are a small business owner in the community, or a homeowner (or both), and a new big business rolls into town demanding tax breaks and public land. This business says it will bring 50 high paying jobs and the potential to expand. Would you want the government to say “forget the public input, forget open government, forget protecting our existing businesses, we’re going to cut this deal tomorrow because we need the jobs?” Should that business be pursued at all costs, seizing property through eminent domain, taking the new company’s word on cost projections without double checking those assumptions, and ignoring the will of the community? We think not. Doing the right thing might take a little time, but it doesn’t take too much time. It might take a little effort, but it doesn’t take too much effort.

We’ll say, again, it’s okay to have differences of opinion on these matters when conducting personal business, but to say that outcomes are more important than process seems unwise operating instructions for a government body.

Good government practices will have good community outcomes. Rising was right the first time: The ends don’t justify the means.