Something else to think about

I once learned that you can define the political parties by how they feel about legislating economics and how they feel about legislating morality (republicans like to legislate morality but not economics, democrats are opposite and libertarians don't want to legislate either).

I've observed that in our city you can separate council members by their level of scrutiny of developers and their level of scrutiny of the budget/administrative policies.  Some scrutinize both pretty thoroughly, some lean more heavily to one of those areas and some kindof pick and choose their battles on both ends.  If I had time to call the candidates again, I would ask them which camp they fit in.  Maybe some of them will read this and let us know.  I know I personally would lean more toward scrutiny of budget/admin than of developers but I also think there's a nice balance when you have differing philosophies on the council. 

As another personal note, I've enjoyed getting to know the candidates.  I appreciate the time and courage it takes for them to put themselves out there and I truly won't be disappointed no matter what happens because I think they are all wonderful people who will serve the city well.

Comments

As a reminder, I'd love to publish comments, but please sign your name. :)
FYI 156 page views.  Not too bad, I think!

The role of council members

Thanks for visiting my Riverdale Elections 2011 blog.  Below you'll find responses from candidates to the following questions:

Do you feel your role is to facilitate efficient, cooperative government or to provide oversight/checks and balances?  Is there a policy, ordinance or budget item you feel could have used more oversight?

As you read the responses, please feel free to leave a comment regarding the election/candidates.  I will publish all comments as long as I can verify you are a real Riverdale resident and you haven't used vulgarity or profanity.  All points of view are welcome and candidates are also invited to respond to comments.

Allen Bowers

From a telephone interview:

You have to be both (a facilitator and check).  There has to be a place where you can see your battles and know which one you’re going to win.  You can’t go in on one side of the fence or the other.  You have to be in the middle and adjust to both sides.  It would be dumb for anyone to go in and think they could sit on one side or the other.  There are too many issues that require different kinds thinking.  The good thing about me is I’m very independent.  I have no ties with anybody.  No ties with city people or churches.  I’m coming in as me, with my mind.  I will give the people the best part of that. 

(Regarding issues that could have used more oversight), there’s a couple that keep coming to mind.  One is city council members getting free ambulance service.  I’m finding more and more people had no idea that’s what was happening.  There’s also some issues with new businesses.  If we get more pawn shops, we’re inviting the wrong kind of people.  I’m not trying to be arrogant, but I think pawn shops tend to invite people that are not always on the up and up.

Don Hunt, incumbent

From a telephone interview:

You need a little bit of both (efficiency and oversight).  The council should be a check and balance and a watch dog over the city as a whole.  There are multiple people with different talents.  What I don’t see, someone else will.  Having five individuals keeping watch adds to the integrity of the city.  Having a balance also promotes efficiency.  Spending too much in one area can cost you in another so scrutiny can promote efficiency and facilitate in keeping the goals of the city as established in strategic planning sessions.  The oversight, scrutiny and input of the council creates efficiency.

I feel we could have scrutinized Larry Hansen’s (city administrator) contract better and negotiated better terms for the city.  It was too one-sided.  I voted in favor of it because of who he is, what he has done for the city and the potential impact he has on the city with sales tax redistribution.  His input is critical.  I put a name and face with the contract, but if this was before the council again, I would have negotiated and made him give a concession.  People say you just go along, but I try not to do that.  I’m trying to lure and keep good people.  They need to be rewarded, but sometimes I question whether I scrutinized enough.

We can get ourselves lost in details.  You can analyze and overanalyze and scrutinize more and more all the time.  I try to be open minded.  I look at the details as they are presented.  Overall I think we scrutinize things pretty well.  On a case-by-case basis we could do better, but the city is being run well and overall I think the council is doing a pretty fair job.

Shelly Jenkins, incumbent

From an email interview:

Goverment by design, was set up with checks and balances.  However, sometimes these steps that separate powers and keep a healthy balance can be confused or viewed as burdensome and unnecessary.   In order for representative government to function as intended from the people up, and not from the top down, these boundaries need to be respected.

In our form of government the Mayor and administrator, who is employed at his pleasure, separate duties of the day to day management of departments and employees to the administrator. But ultimately, the Mayor controls the city staff through the direction of the administrator.  Knowing that it’s in the best interest of the staff to please the Mayor and administrator, it is easy to see how things can get out of balance.       

I was recently asked why I didn’t vote for the city’s budget.  The short answer is there wasn’t enough information.   Reviewing and approving the city’s annual budget is an important part of the council’s responsibilities.  Because the Mayor and administrator have chosen to streamline this process, the council has become less and less involved in the detail.  Katie, you posted the information for http://www.utahsrights.com/  I have been aware of this site for a year or so.  It has become the only source available to the council and the public, to access more specific information as it relates to city employee salaries.  In a service organization our greatest expenses are wages and benefits.  It’s important that we are making wise, sustainable decisions as it relates to these costs.  There may be those in the public that aren’t concerned with how the council is making these decisions, however I have been contacted by many that are concerned that the council isn’t as involved and engaged as they should be.

I know of instances when the council should have been asking for additional information from staff.  We acted on their recommendations and consequently the outcomes were not in the cities best interest, as our information and process wasn’t adequate.  The council isn’t dealing with issues day-to-day and we rely on staff to provide quality information and details. We shouldn’t always “just trust” that people don’t make mistakes, as we all do.  Five heads are better than one and comments or questions could bring light to a possible oversight or a potential problem.

In my view a road to greater efficiency and balance can be achieved with improved preparation of our executive summary, which is used to address agenda items brought before the council.  This document has been a work in progress.  While much improved from its origin it still falls short in a lot of cases, as it lacks alternatives, pros and cons etc.  

Sadly the public isn’t involved in all the issues that the council deals with, which admittedly is mostly mundane and routine, so it doesn’t peak their interest.  Regardless we should still be prepared, study the information as provided and ask questions accordingly, so as not to find ourselves second guessing decisions after the fact.  With that said our information needs to be accurate and prepared with integrity, viewing all sides of the issues and not to prepare information in a manner to support any particular outcome.   

I have had the pleasure, past and present, of working with very intelligent well, intended council members and I have learned a great deal from them.  Most were aware and also spoke out with frustration, knowing that the culture of city government was drifting in the wrong direction to keep a healthy balance in the power.  People can become entrenched in their ideals or agendas.  It’s up to the council to understand the powers they have and recognize it’s healthy to exercise them and not to become complacent.  

Braden Mitchell

From a telephone interview:

I definitely think we need to scrutinize things.  (Based on the Riverdale City Citizens facebook page) I know people are concerned about the mayor having a group of people who are just going to say yes to everything.  I don’t think that’s going to help anyone.  It’s not so much that they want more information or that they want to dig deeper.  It’s not so much that I wish the council would always agree, but sometimes the way things are worded are offensive, personalities clash, and they start to fight.  This is my perception, but I think they start off on the defensive.

As a pharmacist, I deal with the public.  Occasionally people will question me.  I have to treat people in a dignified manner and make my point without offending them.  My skills of diplomacy would be well suited to the council.

(Regarding a policy that could have used more scrutiny), I signed a (fair campaign) pledge at a start of the campaign.  It is probably not the best thing to bring up because I don’t have all the information, but the ambulance thing concerns me a lot.  If that turns out to have happened the way it looks like it has happened from the story in the paper, the council has lost sight of what they’re supposed to be doing.  They have lost sight of their role in relation to the citizens.

Mike Staten

From the Riverdale City Citizens facebook page:

My website has an article I wrote two years ago that, I think is at the heart of….mayor-council communications. This is also how I would answer your question. Here's the link: http://riverdalemayoralissues.blogspot.com.  To make a long story short, the citizens of Riverdale voted over 8 years ago for the form of government we have now, that is, a relatively strong mayor and a relatively weak council.  I think the public was poorly informed about what they choose and that many, if not all, of the frustrations and difficulties described are a direct result of this decision.  In order to reverse it, since it was decided by referendum, it would have to go back to a public referendum.oralissues.blogspot.comTo make a long story short, the citizens of Riverdale voted over 8 years ago for the form of government that we have now, that is, a relatively strong mayor and relatively weak council. I think the public was poorly informed about what they chose, and that many, if not all, of the frustrations and difficulties described are a direct result of this decision. In order to reverse it, since it was decided by referendum, it would have to go back to a public referendum.To make a long story short, the citizens of Riverdale voted over 8 years ago for the form of government that we have now, that is, a relatively strong mayor and relatively weak council. I think the public was poorly informed about what they chose, and that many, if not all, of the frustrations and difficulties described are a direct result of this decision. In order to reverse it, since it was decided by referendum, it would have to go back to a public referendum.

From Staten’s website:

To make a long story short, the citizens of Riverdale voted over 8 years ago for the form of government that we have now, that is, a relatively strong mayor and relatively weak council. I think the public was poorly informed about what they chose, and that many, if not all, of the frustrations and difficulties described are a direct result of this decision. In order to reverse it, since it was decided by referendum, it would have to go back to a public referendum.The decision by the council to go to a city-manager-by-ordinance form of government raised public outcry - I as a voter was told that the decision created a full-time position that supplanted the mayor's authority, that the mayor was now only a figurehead, and that the city manager had all the authority and was an appointed position, so therefore the voice of the people was decreased. It seemed a ploy by the city council to seize powers away from the mayor. In hindsight, it appears that the opposite of all of that is true - rather than an additional full-time position, it was a changing of duties for an already-employed member of staff. Rather than the mayor being only a figurehead, he could put more attention to serving the needs of the community in relation to other cities, the county, and state. Rather than the public having less voice, they have more because the council is reported to directly by the city manager instead of receiving all their information through the mayor who can control the flow of information as he sees fit.

Because of the public outcry, however, it went to referendum, and those opposed to this new form of government were effective in convincing the voting public of their arguments against it, and by referendum the city went back to the 'traditional' form of government with a city administrator and with the mayor as CEO once again. Because this went to the public for referendum, the only way to reverse the decision is by another referendum. My point in my letter to the candidates for mayor is that the issue was misunderstood by the public, as I explained in the previous paragraph, and as such, the city made a decision with consequences they are now living with, of a council that is less informed than I believe they need to be in order to make wise choices for Riverdale. Instead of the decision process being a team effort between council members who represent different professional backgrounds and perspectives, all information is funneled through a single position that has the ability to restrict the role and efficacy of the council. I believe that much of the criticism the mayor is receiving by so many parties right now, about poor communication or choosing favorites on the council, is not so much a result of him not doing his job, but rather of him doing his job the way it is set up. I would like to see whoever fills the position of mayor this next term do more to inform, involve, and work with the council, since it is my opinion that the voters of Riverdale did not get what they were expecting when they voted for the traditional form of government. Perhaps the people should reverse their decision, but that is not up to the council anymore.

Detra Waikart

From a telephone and email interview:

A dictatorship might be more streamlined and efficient, but we are protecting freedoms and you can’t have both.  You have to sacrifice a little bit of efficiency to get democracy.  If nobody asks questions how do you know you’re getting all the information and know that it isn’t skewed?  In my involvement with the PTA (as President of Washington Terrace Elementary PTA) we have a lot of people who want to “go along to get along” and anything more is politics.  We are there for a reason.  If you go along to get along, what are we accomplishing?  This is what I’ve seen in schools but it applies to the city as well.  Somebody can control what’s going on by controlling the information.

In the volunteer positions that I now participate in, I understand that although the topics are different, the format is the same.   As a councilwoman, I will work hard to ask questions, talk to constituents, gather information and make informed decisions.  My decisions would be based on what is best for the community, not the administration.  The city council has responsibility to the people that they serve.   The citizens of Riverdale should expect to be informed and engaged.

I question some things that have been added to the budget like a brand new ambulance and new motorcycles for the police that only get used for four months.  I also question the move that Mr. Hansen (city administrator) got his contract renewed a year and a half early.  I wonder why are we doing this?