July 7, 2003
The sad consequences of poor information
I've been doorbelling in the area north of Steilacoom Boulevard and west of Bridgeport Way. For the first time in several weeks, voters that I meet in Lakewood while doorbelling have city budget issues on their mind. There was a high profile story in The News Tribune that got everyone talking. Let’s look back on how the situation was handled, and what we might learn.
On June 9, the City Council held a study session. This was one of the listed items: “Status of the 2003 budget – memorandum.” A study session is meant to be an opportunity for council members to be briefed on an issue before a main meeting. The idea, I think, is that council members can ask detailed questions and thus avoid bogging down a so-called regular meeting. That's the theory.
A month ago, I was among about five people in the audience. People seem less likely to show up for study sessions, which is funny, because city staff tend to bring up issues that are important in direct proportion to the small size of the crowd. People who attend regular meetings really ought to attend study sessions as well (Of course, you should not have to attend meetings at all if you do not want to, because you should be able to learn about the city without having to attend meetings – and that’s partly what this column is about)
It quickly became clear that the council was talking about a midyear budget report that showed columns of money, and proposed ways of spending it. It quickly became clear that the city government had more money than it had expected.
Now, that’s all that was clear, because only members of the council and staff at the table had copies of a document that council members were clearly scrutinizing. There was nothing presented on that screen in the council chamber that is the size of an IMAX presentation. There were no handouts. If you went to the table at the front of the auditorium, where you will sometimes find handouts, there was nothing to explain how much extra money the city had, where it came from, or what the city manager proposed to do with it. So we in the audience could only listen to the discussion and read between the lines.
Point No. 1: How would you feel if someone invited you for dinner and then ignored you? Failing to provide information about the budget to the audience at the council meeting sends a clear message that the city does not care what the citizens know or think. Now, the maddening part of all this is that I know all the council members. I believe they do care what you think. And that makes the behavior all the more inexplicable.
Point No. 2: By bringing up the budget surplus during a study session, and not at a general meeting, the city created a clear perception that they were trying to keep news of the extra money quiet. “We got extra money, and we don’t want the citizens to know quite yet.” Now, that may not have been the intent, but it is a very reasonable perception.
So MAYBE the city folks responsible for the presentation might have thought they would get away with keeping the news quiet. After all, there were no newspaper reporters there. But that was strangely naïve, when you consider that one of the council members comes from Lakewood Cares.
So I went home that night and made the following prediction, based on my many years of observing council meetings: Pad Finnigan is going to call the paper and criticize what the city is proposing to do. There will be a big story whose thesis is, ‘A council member in Lakewood is criticizing how the city proposes to spend a surplus …’
Now, my family is used to me making predictions on the future of their lives – my kids just roll their eyes - so imagine their surprise when I turned out to be right. The headline was “Lakewood windfall: What to do?” http://www.tribnet.com/news/government/story/3359986p-3390835c.html
We have seen this strategy before, waaaay back even when I was editor of the Lakewood Journal. And the strategy of trying to keep important city news quiet just doesn’t work. You have to be open. The alternative – and this is what happened in this case – is that the first time people will hear about your plan is when someone is criticizing it. I don’t think that’s good for anyone, even the person criticizing – because sometimes that situation just makes people confused. I have talked to a lot of voters who are confused, and that is inexcusable. This is the information age. There are more ways to get news to anyone than ever before.
(What I should do as a candidate is pledge you will ALWAYS find explanation of complicated issues on this site when I’m on the council – but that would be a digression, so let’s get back to the main point … )
What you do when you determine there is a budget surplus in your city is that you tell the citizens. We’re the ones who pay the taxes. We’re the ones to vote. THEN you talk about what to do with the money: give some or all of it back, adjust tax rates, hire a property crimes unit for the police, or what have you.
Right now, I’m just flat confused. That’s an ugly situation for me personally, because voters who I approach while doorbelling ask me what I think should be done with the money. I don’t know how much of the surplus came form one-time funds that will never surface again, and how much came from revenues that can be expected to reoccur from year to year. I couldn’t get the numbers to add up based on what I have been reading and hearing.
The city needs to put an explanation on its Web page that can at least tell people with Internet access where the money came from, and what might be done with it. Now. Already, it’s one month too late.
So look here for an explanation: http://www.ci.lakewood.wa.us/ Do you see an explanation? If they've got one up by now, great, but if not, why not?
Click here to close this window.
Click here to close this window.