Trust, but Verify! (Part 1)Trust, Risk, and Obama

If you’re playing a game of word association and someone says ‘politician’, the word ‘trust’ isn’t likely to be the first thing that comes to mind. Yet, in statements at the December council meeting, in the newspaper, and in a comment on this blog, more trust in government, presumably on the part of the citizens of Geneva, is exactly what Mayor Einstein is calling for. Additionally, our recent post on President-elect Obama’s cabinet appointments generated some feedback that we wanted to consider on a broader level. We were asked by readers, “Why don’t you guys, or why can’t you guys trust Obama?”

So the Mayor and other readers got us thinking about trust, and its role in what scholar Mark Warren refers to as a deliberative democracy. (Check out Miller’s thinking here).This part of the post will deal with issues of trust on the national level, while Part II brings it back to the local scene.

Did our Founding Fathers believe that an active trust in our government was necessary for its proper functioning? Well, yes and no. In drafting the Constitution, they sought to create a system of governance which the people could trust to pursue their best interests, with our collective benefit the result. But, they also recognized that power is inherent in government, and that power can be corrupting, and not conducive to good government.

That’s why they included a system of checks, balances, separation of powers, and other remedies to protect against concentrations and abuses of that power. In addition to the three branches of government, the Constitution, by virtue of the First Amendment, guaranteeing freedom of speech, ensures a 'fourth estate,' that publicizes and reflects upon the acts of government. As James Madison declared, “To the press alone...the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression”. So, while the Founding Fathers wanted us to trust the system and probably hoped that we could trust our public officials, they provided a mechanism of verifying and correcting the actions of public officials who had gone astray.

They put their ultimate faith in the people. So, while the Federalist papers state “if angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary,” they go on to support the Constitution, which articulated a system of government by the people, and mechanisms for public information and communication, as the institution that can be trusted to correct any misdeeds.

More recently, political scientists have explored the role of trust in contemporary political life, particularly as it relates to relations between the people and their representatives. In his book, Trust (1994), William Bianco assumed “constituents look for ways to increase the chances that their representatives will act in their [the constituents] interests.” He found two main ways: (1) “retrospective evaluations,” which judge outcomes and for which there is a reckoning at the next election; (2) “trust,” which assumes their representative is better informed than they, and ought to be entrusted. The basis of trust is either the representative’s “presentation of self,” making the case that he/she is to be trusted on the basis of personal qualities (integrity, etc.), or “traceablity,” the idea that constituents can eventually get to the bottom of decisions. This, of course, assumes that elected representatives come to meetings prepared and do the appropriate research and deliberation so that their knowledge base can be reasonably assumed to exceed, or at minimum match, that of their constituents.

In “Democratic Theory and Trust,” Mark Warren emphasizes the relationship between trust and risk. He defines trust generally as “a judgment to accept vulnerability to the potential ill will of others by granting them discretionary power over some good.” What’s strange about trust in the specific realm of politics is that once you’ve entered the political realm (as opposed to familial, social, or community relations) trust is already on shaky ground. That’s just the nature of politics.

However, there are good reasons for wanting trust. For instance, you might accept the risk of trust in exchange for the benefits of cooperation that could follow. Paradoxically, though, the greater the need for trust, the greater the risk involved. Or, expressed another way, the conditions which are best for trust, are the conditions where trust is least needed. For Warren, then, you want to become involved in trust, because of its benefits, but yet, you want to limit the risks entailed by trust.

So, for Warren, how is trust created? For him, it is through open and honest government with good communication. Here’s what he says:

“A stable background of trust is unlikely if there are consistent and pervasive conflicts of interest in the society…what maintains a background of trust, rather, is my knowledge that I could monitor and challenge authorities or trusted others, as well as the other’s knowledge that I can do so. One of the ironies of modern forms of trust is that they are more robust when they can be challenged.”

We think the sentiment is best captured in President Reagan’s phrase “Trust, but Verify.” Of course, the whole thing gushes with irony, for to trust, is never needing to verify.

Warren concludes that “trust thrives when institutions are structured so as to respond to communication." This requires access to information and deliberations so as to ensure transparency, and also an "institutional means for challenging" authorities and 'trusted' individuals.

When it comes to Obama, so far, we trust his judgment, in part because of what we know about him as a person (though we also trusted Spitzer, but who could have known what he was really like?). But does that mean our role ought to be merely that of a ‘cheerleader’? Our basis of trust in Obama is both Bianco’s notion of “presentation of self,” i.e., his character, and Warren’s concept of transparency, i.e., the potential verifiability of all his claims. Part of trusting someone’s judgment is trusting that s/he makes decisions based on sound reasons and that s/he is open to information and deliberates thoroughly.

In short, trusting the government is actually trusting the political process that we all participate in. By vigorously participating, which includes open and responsible debate, you are demonstrating that trust. Think of it this way: If we didn’t trust our politicians (be they local or national), what would be the point of writing this blog or of voting or of even paying attention at all? If they are sinister and corrupt, then nothing we say or do would matter, would it?

And, more importantly, the blog itself is ultimately an instrument of trust, in so far as it demonstrates, in its fact-based point of view, that what government says and does is ultimately verifiable

Political Appointments, Qualifications, and the American DreamPart II: Citizenship Against the Machine

City Council and the City Democratic and Republican Committees recently convened to discuss appointments to City boards, commissions, and offices. It has long been the custom in the City that the party on Council with the majority of seats would name citizens who were members of that party to fill various posts.

The classic case, because it was both lucrative and power laden, was City Attorney. The position would go to an attorney long loyal to the ruling party. Loyalty, simple faithfulness, would be measured by overall support for the party and its candidates, professional service to the party, such as pro bono legal work, financial contributions and fund raising, and so on.
Political appointments are a variation on the theme, “To the victors belong the spoils,” a phrase dating to the early 1800s and attributed to Andrew Jackson and U.S. Senator William March (D-NY, 1831).

According to the City Charter, Council has the power to appoint the City Manager, the City Clerk, the City Attorney, five members of the Board of Assessment Review, three members of the Fire Commission, nine members of the Recreation Advisory Board, nine members of the Planning Board, seven members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, seven members of the Historic District Commission, and other appointive officers as required. Council also appoints Councilors to seats vacated before the expiration of a term. The City Manger is also empowered to make several appointments.

When it came to filling vacancies on the various boards, if the appointment was supposed to be a Democrat, the City Democratic Committee would meet and bring forward to Council the name and resume of a qualified Democrat; likewise, for a Republican appointment. While most of these posts are considered non-political, the Charter takes precautions to insure that no board be dominated by one party, that a board “shall not consist of not more than a bare majority at any time of adherents of the same political party.”

About five years ago, things began to change. Council was having difficulty filling positions on boards and felt searching for a nominee narrowly, among members of one party, unnecessarily limited the field. There was also the question of Independents or unaffiliated voters. While the majority party could appoint an Independent or unaffiliated person, there was not an organization for those candidates like the two city committees. Then some Councilors who had been snubbed in one way or another by a committee retaliated by voting against nominees brought forward by the City Committees. 

Mayor Einstein has virtually disregarded party politics, case in point being the appointments of the City Judge and the City Attorney, citing qualifications as paramount. Party leaders felt blindsided, embarrassed, and disrespected.  After all, they said, he accepted and benefitted from a party committed to his stated values and dedicated to his election.  But should party, i.e., loyalty, be the first requisite, the first qualification, of an appointment in Geneva City government? 

We don’t think so, if there is a concomitant reform of ‘machine politics’ generally. Machines do bring order to the political process and help to organize our political life. They also do a great deal of the work of vetting nominees. Think of the difficulties independents have running for office. We’d still like to see an open and honest nominating process, where openings are described and publicized, interested citizens may submit qualifications and sit for interviews, and Council makes appointments based on appropriate criteria. But such a process requires a commitment from the parties to be involved in such an effort, for people to be forthcoming with their time and talents, and for Council to commit to appointments based on qualifications that do not include issues of personality and partisanship.

Has the Geneva School District Veered Off Course?Check Out "North" and "West" on Your Compass

At NoStrings, we have a ‘no leaks, no gossip’ policy. We resist posting on aspects of topics we’ve only heard about, and which are not traceable to a source the public can access. That said, and as our anonymous comments post indicates, we are willing to consider information provided by credible sources if they identify themselves to us and give a compelling reason for their name not to used. While that may be an even higher threshold of anonymous citation than most journalists use, we still use it sparingly.

Over the holidays, we were approached by any number of people who wonder why, given our commitment to accountability and open, transparent decision-making in all arenas of government, we haven’t weighed in on the proposed ‘realignment’ of the City’s elementary schools. The answer is simple: we hadn’t heard about it. But, now that we have, and had it verified, at least as a move under consideration, we feel it’s an issue that we should take up. In part one of this two part post, we explore the process issues related to the proposed realignment, in part two we will delve a bit deeper into the content of the proposal.

“Realignment” refers to housing all district K-2 students at one school, and the 3-5 students at the other. Let us say at the outset that we are both advocates of public education, in general, and Geneva schools in particular, as detailed in a previous post. However, we have serious concerns about the governance structure within the district. If it is true that district leaders have already decided—without any further discussion allowed-- to realign the West Street and North Street elementary schools, then the move would be a case study in bad policy-making.

First, the concerns about process. On the macro-level, school board members are elected representatives of the people of the district, and the school board--as a whole--is the policy-making body for the district. The school board is analogous to the City Council in so far as each body sets the policy course, hires the chief executive to carry out policy and oversee departments, approves all taxing and spending, and monitors progress toward achieving the goals it has set.

The National School Board Association (NSBA) lists the eight key roles of any School Board: to set the vision and mission of the district; to establish performance standards; to engage in assessment of performance; to be accountable for that performance (or lack thereof); organizational alignment to achieve goals; to create a climate and culture of support for students; teachers, and parental involvement; to encourage collaborative relationships across levels of decision-making; and to strive for continuous improvement.

The NSBA provides links to school board initiatives across the country that exemplify these qualities. Community engagement is key to school district success and that, as it is with City Council, requires to things: (1) That leaders share accurate and timely information with district residents; (2) That leaders create opportunities for meaningful feedback from students, faculty, staff, and residents. 


A good example of this can be found in the Hillsboro School District (Oregon) which features “Community Listening Sessions.” Residents are given their due as participants in the decision-making process, and are encouraged to both share their own views and to help disseminate information back into the community in their roles as ‘key communicators.’ Nothing we’ve heard about the proposed ‘realignment’ of the schools indicates that parents, students, or even staff have been meaningfully engaged in the discussions leading up to the decision.

The city of Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey, considered a similar change in 2005. They involved staff and parents from the start and it looked as if everyone was open to the idea of moving from two K-5 elementary schools to one K-2 school and one 3-5 school. But after several questions were raised (some of which we will discuss in Part 2) it was determined that the change was not in the district’s best interest. Both schools, Lincoln and Euclid, retained their K-5 configuration, and Lincoln was named a Governor’s School of Excellence.

What prompted the Hasbrouck Heights initiative, and what we can only assume is prompting Geneva's look at realignment, is an attempt to cut costs. Again, when a public body is considering a major change, we find that it’s usually better to ‘prime the pump’ by communicating with the public, early on in the process, the need that is prompting the review. In this case, Geneva taxpayers are left to wonder, is the ‘need’ one of student performance, of fiscal crisis, of facility inadequacy, or some combination therein? We’ll make a medical analogy to illustrate our point: Would you, as a patient, undergo a radical therapy, with potentially harmful side effects, if your doctor hadn’t first told you what condition he was treating and why this particular course of treatment was the preferred option? We are pretty confident that NoStrings readers would want a diagnosis first, treatment options second, and then the recommendation!

As Ken Camera likes to say about City Council, what’s needed in the discussion is a complete and accurate ‘data set’ and an infusion of some ‘public intelligence.’ So, if it is true that the Geneva School Board is about to spring a major change on the students and families of our school district, we need to hear something more than, “Talk to the Superintendent, it was his recommendation,” which is the answer we often hear. Where’s the accountability? Check your compass.