Realignment, Representation, and Responsibility:Decision-Making '08-'09

Our first interview of 2009 on Ted Baker’s morning show began with a question about improvements in governing under the Einstein administration. Augustine pointed out that more public business was transacted in public, as it should be, instead of in executive sessions as it used to be. Baker agreed that this was an important development, as the public is always wary of decisions made “behind closed doors.” Capraro highlighted the meaningful participation of the public in giving feedback and providing information at meetings and work sessions. That’s an indication that not only is city government poised to make decisions according to a better process, but the process is likely to yield better decisions. It also predicts greater participation when people feel heard.

While things may be improving in city government, that does not mean that all governing in the city is running smoothly; for instance, the Geneva City School District, which was the focus of Baker’s next series of questions. Our first post about the proposed ‘realignment’ demonstrated that what might had made itself known as a mere rumor, upon finding the facts, turned out to be true.

The local paper eventually reported, as an afterthought at a meeting for a different purpose, that the Superintendent was forming a ‘citizens committee’ to “study” the issue and issue findings by mid-February. The paper didn’t bother to ask any follow up questions or see fit to gather information about the membership, mission, or schedule of that group.

Our second post on the topic gave, in our view, several compelling reasons to question the realignment and certainly raised red flags that might not be able to be fully addressed in a few short weeks. In the days that followed our posts, we received a great deal of feedback from people concerned about the changes, and additional evidence was provided that raises doubts about the academic merits of such a changed. Stay tuned for another post that will give those matters more consideration.

In the course of the discussion with Ted Baker, we honed in on the issues of representation, accountability, and transparency. Baker posed a question that strikes at the heart of the issue: Are elected representatives simply there to vote the ‘will of the majority’ or are they expected to ‘know better’ than their constituents and exercise their own judgment?

In answering this question, which took the balance of the show, we previewed our most recent posts on trust. Elected officials must always remember that they answer to the community. This doesn’t mean that they are supposed to ask a few people what they think about a random issue and then vote accordingly. No, that would be taking the easy way out. Instead, the job of an elected official is to gather, review, and share information about complex issues; to formulate and articulate their reasons for supporting a particular position on each issue; to solicit, consider, and evaluate opinions from a variety of people, those that agree and especially those that disagree. Only then can a person be said to truly be engaged in representation. Trust is built and maintained when representatives take a position after careful consideration and explain the basis of that position to their constituents.

Take a listen by clicking here, or visiting the NoStrings Radio Archive.

Trust, but Verify! (Part II)Trust, Risk, and Einstein

In our previous post on this topic, we looked at the broad issue of trust in government and the feelings of trust in Obama that have been widely reported in the run up to his inauguration.

Locally, the issue of trust has come to the surface as Mayor Einstein, in a interview with the local paper reflecting on his first year in office, lamented the questioning he and his administration have received, particularly related to the lakefront plan. For a more thorough understanding of these concerns, we refer to the comment that he submitted in response to one of our posts about the lakefront plan.

The Mayor’s comment posted to our blog, which you can read here, was in response to another comment from the highly engaged community leader Cynthia Hsu. Essentially, Hsu states that City Council must pass a zoning change on the lakefront--restricting residential and commercial development altogether--in order to prove to the public that they mean it when they say they do not want Building 12.

As Hsu put it, “It would go a long way to building public trust.” But, apparently, Mayor Einstein interpreted her to be saying “I won't trust you until and unless you make it absolutely impossible for anyone, at any time, to do anything that I disagree with” and he rejected that way of thinking.

Although we don’t agree with Ms. Hsu’s rationale for the zoning proposal, we also don’t agree with the Mayor's response to her position. After all, the history of the lakefront plan is not all sunshine and roses. Even the local paper, in its end-of-year recap of supposed ‘top stories,’ highlighted the irregularities in the planning process. On May 29, 2008 the headline read “Lakefront Committee: No Housing.”

That article detailed a meeting of the Quality Communities Planning Committee during which Bergmann Associates’ initial recommendations were reviewed and the committee clearly indicated that housing on the lakefront should be definitively ruled out as a lakefront development option.

Then, in August, the rest of Council, along with the public, got their first glimpse of the Bergmann plan that included-- front and center-- lakefront housing. Did anyone-- the QCPC, the Mayor, or the Council-- immediately and publicly question the inconsistency? No. Instead, it was given equal footing with the other plan components, those that the community and QCPC did find to be consistent with public values. Luckily, it seems that the idea was ultimately abandoned, but the point is that the process, even at the end stages, lacked predictability. Predictability is what you get when expectations match reality.

Predictability is also what a lot of people mean by trust, or want from government, and which might be the basis of trust. We refer, again, to the ideals of the Founding Fathers. They didn’t believe in blind trust for public officials, but they didn’t harbor a total suspicion of government processes. The keys to their system of checks and balances are: Accountability, transparency, and predictability. In other words, the public needs to know what decisions are being made, by whom, and according to what guidelines in order to either support or challenge the process. The Founding Fathers knew best of all that the ends don’t justify the means, and their focus was on producing a system of means that would yield appropriate and productive ends.

Accountability, transparency, and predictability require two additional characteristics: honesty and publicity. This is the commitment public officials must make to tell the public the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. If any piece of the decision-making puzzle is missing, you have an environment that breeds distrust.

If, for example, someone tells you that they are going to make a decision on Tuesday, but when you show up Tuesday, you find that the decision was made the previous weekend and the change in plans was never announced, you’re not going to trust that decision-making process, and rightfully so, even if you agree with the decision that was made. For public officials to engender the public trust, they must develop and clearly communicate reasonable expectations, stay committed to meeting those expectations to the best of their ability, and be willing to be forthcoming and candid about any changes.

So, much of this hinges on public communication. And that’s where, as we have discussed in previous posts, the press enters the picture. The public must have access to information and public officials must have a means of accurately communicating with their constituents. A recent statement from the Democrat and Chronicle’s editorial board details their commitment to being ‘watchdogs.’ This is a necessary component of public trust in government. Everyone must know, public officials and residents alike, that information is available and verifiable.

We, at NoStrings, were distrustful of the previous administration (on both the National and the local levels)--with what we believe was good reason. After all, there was example upon example of back room dealing and misrepresentation, which leads us to conclude that these were not stray occurrences, but rather the standard operating procedure. The local paper was noticeably absent, or when present, unable or unwilling to do any meaningful follow up to verify that ‘official statements’ were truthful (or not). Our goal in starting this website was to bring accountability back. We know what happens when people--the media, the governing body, the public, trusts but does not bother to verify.

It’s not the case that the public should be openly suspicious of its elected leaders, nor should those officials require that the public simply ‘take their word(s) for it.’ Instead, it is a balancing act in which both parties operate in good faith, knowing that there is a predictable, accountable, transparent process by which decisions can be made, successes celebrated, and mistakes corrected. NoStringsGeneva is not part of the problem but part of the solution to trust in government.

Community Events Monday and Tuesday

Join the Geneva Community in commemorating the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. with a march at 9:30am (beginning at the Public Safety Building) to the Methodist Church on Main Street where the ceremony and community luncheon will follow at 11am.

On Tuesday night, your family, friends, and neighbors can join in watching a rebroadcast of the Obama Inauguration in the Scandling Center on Pulteney Street. The event begins at 5:30pm and includes live call-in reports from Genevans in DC for the celebration. It is free, and refreshments will be provided.