Commentary: Fix the Problem; Don’t Gut the Commissions

It is easy to ascribe motivation absent other information. However, the fact remains that the proposals put forward into policy recommendations, without vetting through the community, are premature at best.  This would have been much better off introduced through a workshop format, allowing all the commissions and citizens who understand their history to come forward, and then  attempt a policy discussion.

From the discussions I have had so far, there appear to be three key points that need to be discussed.  The first explanation for this proposed policy is cost savings.  The problem immediately is that we have no idea how much in the way of cost savings this will produce.  There is no quantification of staff time.  There is no calculation of cost for staff time.

One suggested explanation for why this would save money is that because of the number of commissions that we have, we have to carry extra staff members just to staff these commissions.  That idea seems a bit hyperbolic to me.  I will discuss in a moment that issue, but I believe we are going about this backwards.

However, regardless, the budget problems we face in this community are not due to commissions.  We could get rid of every commission and eliminate several additional staff positions and we would still be facing fiscal calamity in five years.

The fact is the city is not in fiscal crisis because of commission or policies. We are facing fiscal crisis because we grew our salaries too fast, supporting them with a tax increase and the real estate bubble. Once the economy burst, the backing of salary increases went bust as well.

We need to fix our compensation system.  We know that requires fixing the unfunded liability for retiree health care and our pension system.

In so much as this proposeal does not fix the fiscal problem, it seems to be another attempt to nickel and dime the city’s finances, without producing the real savings that we need.  Put this up there with the furloughs and reorganization.

Speaking of which, what became clear through various discussions is that the real problem is that the commission restructuring that took place prior to the election simply was not sufficient. 

To illustrate this second key point, let’s talk about the tale of two uses of commissions – one that worked and one that was more of a disaster.

Last year an artificial group known as CHA was formed by a developer to promote a specific land use (senior housing) on a specific property (Covell Village) for a specific project.  The result was the creation by the developer of a movement for senior housing.

One thing that came out of that flawed process was the work of the Senior Citizens Commission and Social Services Commission, who both looked into the issue separately and were able to foster good and solid proposals that steered the city away from the developer-driven model.  That is an example of how the commission system should work, and an example of why two commissions looking at different aspects of a project are better than one.

A bad thing that came out of the process was again a developer-driven process occurred, when the developers of Verona went to the Planning Commission to ask for a redress on a number of issues.  Eventually, staff came forward with a plan based on what would have cost the city a ton of money. The Parks and Recs Commission looked only at its portion, and Finance and Budget its portion of the project.  Were it not for specific questions that emerged, driven from outside of the commission process, the proposal might have looked very different.

The council itself was forced to put everything together, because each commission only looked at its own bite of the action.  That is not a good way to run a commission system, and it caused work at the council level that should never have gotten that far.

What we need to do and did not do was to come up with a specific process, whereby projects and other ideas are evaluated.  One of the things that the restructuring is looking to do is to bring together larger subject expertise.  For me, that is something could be accomplished through joint-committees, or better yet, subcommittees based on multiple commissions who can then return a proposal to the commissions and re-examine the proposal from a narrower perspective.

The solution is not to gut the commission system, but rather to change the way it works and interacts with itself, with the council and with the community.  That is what the restructuring from the spring failed to accomplish, to create a system that effectively examines issues that come forward.

Finally, a third key point is that a lot of commissions, or some, have vacancies, and many have trouble getting people to show up at meetings.  To me, this goes back to the start of the current council era, with the loading up of commissions in 2004 with political appointments and the dismissal of many commissioners who did not agree with that council majority.

The culmination of that process was the disbanding of the HRC for a variety of reasons, the discussion of which will likely reignite some political differences.  But the bottom line is that after that point, the HRC and other commissions were denuded of their strengths.  People were placed onto commissions who were quite frankly duds.  And fewer people were willing to serve because their services were disrespected.

We do not fix this problem by further denuding the strength of commissions, we fix it by building them up and making them stronger.  We should be reaching out to members of the community who offer expertise and passion, and asking them to serve their community.  The commissions should not reflect the will of the council majority, they should reflect the diversity of the community and represent it.  A good commission should challenge the council, advise the council, question the council, and push the council.

If we weaken the commission structure and process, then we will fail to convince strong, interested and active members of the community  to come forward once again.  Right now, many commissioners have done little in the community, have little investment, do not know the city’s politics and passions, and thus treat attending meetings as a chore rather than a privilege.

The bottom line is that the commissions are not going to save or break the budget, and if there are problems we can solve them through restructuring each commission’s purview and process.  We can come up with ways to save staff time if that is a concern.  We can come up with ways to encourage membership and recruit people who will be more active members.  But if we consolidate, we will lose the expertise on some of the strongest commissions.

I think we need a separate Social Services and Senior Citizens commission.  We need an independent Historic Resources Commission to make sure our Historic Treasures are preserved.  We need to look out for civil rights in this community.  I understand the need to save money, but to me it seems we are looking everywhere, except to the financial problem itself, to do so.

—David M. Greenwald reporting