Tonight the Task Force on Government Structure is finally going to be making some recommendations – maybe. They are at least intending to try. The two committees that looked at Boards Committees and Commissions and the Common Council have finished their reports and the full committee will be reviewing them tonight at 6pm.
ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT
These are the four agenda items.
– REPORT OF THE SUBCOMMITEE ON BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES, INCLUDING:
a. Concise Summary of the Subcommittee’s Written Report
b. List of Possible Recommendations
– INITIAL DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FULL TFOGS TO DECIDE REGARDING BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES
– REPORT OF THE SUBCOMITTEE ON THE COMMON COUNCIL INCLUDING:
a. Concise Summary of the Subcommittee’s Written Report
b. List of Possible Recommendations
– INITIAL DISCUSSION OF SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS AND POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS
FINDING THE DOCUMENTS
This is one of those committees that don’t link to specific agenda items on the agenda. In order to find the agenda items you have to wade through one link where all the materials are.
To find the reports they will be reviewing tonight you have to go to:
30. Materials Related to the Boards, Commissions and Committees Subcommittee
The report is item 30.
and
31. Materials related to the Common Council Subcommittee
Their report is item 47.
I’m sure its no surprise that I’m quite certain one of their recommendations will be to make the process to find information easier.
THERE ARE NO ACTUAL RECOMMENDATIONS YET
The subcommittees didn’t actually make recommendations. They had many, many, many discussions about what the committee should discuss. They essentially identified all the issues and possible recommendations. The arguments are well formed, and the solutions are all connected. If the council moves to 4 years, then it might make sense to have a council president that serves for 2 years. If the council stays at 2 years, then it’s a different discussion about how many years the council president should serve. I don’t think anyone has yet figured out how to discuss these interlinking items without going around in circles.
BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES REPORT
The report is quite easy to read and relatively straight forward. It’s only 8 pages with 5 pages of appendices. Here’s the highlights. It is still labeled draft.
Council Resolution
The council resolution asks the main committee to consider the following:
- The use of resident, Common Council and staff members in the City’s BCC System;
- The scope and nature of the powers of the City’s BCCs, including how they report to the Common Council and how their recommendations are received;
- The frequency and time of day of both Council and BCC meetings;
- The extent to which state statutes impact the City’s BCC structure;
- The efficacy of BCC models and practices of cities similar to Madison;
- The effects of the City’s BCC structure on efforts to increase racial equity and social justice;
- Best practices for ensuring municipal decision makers are representative of, connected to and accountable to all members of the community; and
- Other methods for creating multiple avenues for resident participation in government without privileging decision-making based on the time and ability to attend meetings.
Their recommendations start off with this statement “Though well intended, the City’s BCC structure is challenged by inadequate representation, lack of defined purpose and accountability, low levels of resident participation, and inequitable distribution of staffing and resources.”
These are the challenges they noted:
a. The high number of BCCs results in a drain on resident, staff, and alder time.
b. The current BCC structure lacks diversity.
c. The current BCC structure lacks accountability.
d. BCCs vary in levels of authority and influence.
e. Some BCCs lack a defined purpose, have appeared to outlive their stated purpose, or have a purpose that overlaps the purpose of other BCCs or city staff.
f. The high number of BCCs with varying and sometimes overlapping purposes can result in multiple referrals that slow down City processes and frustrate residents.
g. The logistical processes (meeting times, locations, rules, and infrastructure) used by the current BCC structure do not facilitate member or resident participation.
h. Staffing, training, and resources provided within the current BCC structure tends to be inadequate and uneven.
i. The appointment process within the current structure could contribute to the lack of diversity and high vacancy rate on BCCs.
And here are their potential actions they think might solve these issues they noted.
- Reorganize the BCC structure to increase accountability and require annual review of BCCs relevance and usefulness.
- Eliminate BCCs that have outlived their usefulness.
- Eliminate BCCs that perform work that would better be performed by staff or a non-
government organization. - Eliminate or combine BCCs that work on the same or similar subject areas.
- Provide better clarity of purpose for BCCs either through ordinance amendments or
otherwise. - Provide better training for chairs, members, and staff on the role of each BCC and the
rules and procedures for running an effective meeting and achieving a meaningful
result. - Change the time, place, rules, and procedures of BCC meetings to create a greater
likelihood of achieving diversity in participation and representation. - Explore alternative forums of resident participation that may or may not take the form of a traditional BCC, including greater use of technology.
- Consider creating an Office of Resident Engagement and Neighborhood Support that would be responsible for, among other things, staffing, training, minutes/reporting for BCC meetings and for engaging residents on key issues coming before the City’s BCCs.
- Employ a greater use of ad-hoc committees, with clearly defined mission, authorities, oversight, staffing and reporting requirements. Dissolve the ad-hoc committee once it completed its task.
- Increase representation and participation by conducting impact analysis for city decisions to determine which residents will be most highly impacted by a decision and put processes in place to reach out to those residents.
- Consider alternatives to the current BCC member appointment process such as splitting up appointment responsibilities between the Mayor and Common Council.
More specifically they identified these potential actions.
a. Reorganize current BCC structure around “mother committees,” require alders to only serve on those committees, and have all other resident committees organized to report to one mother committee.
– Possible alternatives centered on the idea of designating “mother committees” and “resident committees.” Alders would serve on “mother committees” which would oversee the “resident committees” grouped beneath it. The resident committees would be grouped, generally by topic area, under each mother committee and would be required to report to the mother committees.
– Each year, all committees would be responsible for conducting a self-evaluation to consider its continued relevance and usefulness. These ideas are represented in both Option A and B, attached. Further, Option B considers the possibility of eliminating or combining some existing BCCs that have perhaps outlived their usefulness or have jurisdictions overlapping other BCCs.
b. Consider the creation of an Office of Resident Engagement and Neighborhood Support (ORENS).
– The mission of this department would be to work toward better representation on BCCs and the Common Council of people of color and those living with low income.
– The Subcommittee discussed that such an office could be responsible for the conducting the administrative functions associated with BCCs (agendas, minutes, etc.), assist with membership staffing of BCCs, the degree of resident engagement, representation, as well as many other functions.
c. Consider options for changing appointment powers.
They have three options:
– First, the mayor appoints all resident members and the CCEC appoints all alder members.
– Second, the CCEC appoints all members to policy-related BCCs and the mayor appoints all members to administration-related BCCs.
– And third, either the mayor or CCEC appoints all members but ordinance changes are made to allow the non-appointing entity have some identified right of refusal of appointees.
d. Creating a technology plan that will improve resident engagement.
Their ideas include:
– remote participation of BCC members and the public in BCC meetings,
– notification or alerts of issues coming before BCCs,
– platforms on which to submit feedback to certain items under consideration, and
– a ticketing system that would allow residents to follow items of interest and see how they are resolved.
COMMON COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
Here’s this committee report which is still labeled draft.
The Council resolution asked the maintainability committee to consider:
- The powers and duties of the Common Council;
- The powers of Council members to chair meetings of the Common Council, Finance Committee, and other boards, commissions, and committees (“BCCs”);
- The attributes of councils with full-time members, part-time members, and those considered to be volunteer councils performing duties for a nominal salary or honorarium;
- The number of Council members and the impact on effective representation of residents in general and people of color and those living with lower incomes in particular, functional of the body, and city government services;
- District vs. at large elections for Council members;
- Remuneration of Council members include a process for a change in pay;
- The size and cost of Council staff;
- Best practices for ensuring municipal decision makers are representative of, connected to and accountable to all members of the community; and
- Other methods for creating multiple avenues for resident participation in government without privileging decision-making based on the time and ability to attend meetings.
These are the topics they chose to discuss:
1. Full vs. part time alders or hybrid;
2. Alder terms (2 v 4 years);
3. Number of alders/districts;
4. Staggered terms;
5. At-large vs. geographic districts or hybrid or numbered districts;
6. Term limits;
7. Redistricting considerations including diversity representation;
8. Compensation levels;
9. Compensation and term of Council President and Vice President;
10. Support staffing levels and training for Council members;
11. Alders serving on BCCs;
12. Appointment of alders to BCCs;
13. Appointment of residents to BCCs;
14. Alders as chairs of BCCs; and
15.Structural and procedural issues relating to equity and meaningful engagement of residents in council decision-making, including time, place and length of Council meetings, budget development, barriers to resident participation and accountability.
They identified positive and negative aspects of several of these issues as follows:
a. Full-time vs. part-time alders.
Positive effects:
- Having alders who are able to dedicate all of their professional time to the work of the city instead of balancing multiple jobs and responsibilities;
- Making the position of alder more attractive to candidates who may otherwise be unable to participate on a part-time council with part-time pay;
- Having alders who would likely have larger districts, making Madison’s residents per council member closer to other cities, thus possibly changing the level of influence a small group of residents can have on a single alder (could also be viewed as a negative); and
- Having alders who may be better positioned to consider the best interest of the entire city and not necessarily just their individual districts.
Negative effects:
- Professionalizing the position of alder, resulting in bigger campaigns, more money, and more influence from moneyed interests;
- Creating alders who may be less connected to their constituents and more removed from local or district issues;
- Discouraging individuals from running for alder for fear of leaving a current job and then losing re-election two years later; and
- Risk losing the varied backgrounds and job experiences often found on a larger part- time Common Council.
b. 2-year vs. 4-year terms for alders.
2 year terms
Positive – more frequent campaigns and more direct-constituent contact
Negative – more frequent campaigns means running for alder when first getting familiar with the position and more costs for campaigns (alder and the city)
4 year terms
Positive – none actually listed
Negative – Professionalized campaigns, discourage candidate who might not know where they will live in 4 years, more vacancies mid-term and longer political appointee terms
Conclusion – The committee reached consensus that “moving to 4-year terms was likely in the best interest of the City”
c. Term limits for alders.
Positive – fresh candidates and new ideas, more competitive elections and less influence from outside groups
Negative – deprive Council of experienced leaders, infringe on the democratic process, increase the influence of outside professionals or staff have on alders, impact ability to follow through on long term projects
d. Length of Council president and vice-president terms.
Positive – by the time the Council president becomes comfortable in the role of Council President their term is almost over.
Negative – some members only serve under one President.
e. Total number of alders/districts.
Positive Effects of Full-Time Council (and larger districts):
- Having alders who are able to dedicate all of their professional time to the work of the city instead of possibility balancing two jobs and any other responsibilities they may have;
- Making the position of alder more attractive to candidates who may have otherwise been unable to participate on a part-time council with part-time pay;
- Having alders who would likely have larger districts, making Madison’s residents per council member closer to other cities, thus possibly changing the level of influence a small group of residents can have on a single alder (could also be viewed as a negative); and
- Having alders who may be better positioned to consider the best interest of the entire city and not necessarily just their individual districts.
Negative Effects of Full-Time Council (and larger districts):
- Professionalizing the position of alder, resulting in bigger campaigns, more money, and more influence from moneyed interests;
- Creating alders who may be less connected to their constituents and more removed from local or district issues;
- Discouraging individuals from running for alder for fear of leaving a current job and then losing re-election two years later; and
- Risk losing the varied backgrounds and job experiences often found on a larger part- time Common Council.
“After much discussion, the consensus of the Subcommittee was that reducing the size of the council would not necessarily result in better representation. In fact, they noted that larger districts could reduce the likelihood of electing a person of color by eliminating districts (like District 14) that were drawn to give people of color a greater chance of being elected.”
f. At-large vs. geographic districts.
– moving from geographic to at-large districts could have the positive effect of requiring alders to consider issues in relation to what is good for the entire city, not just their district or the individuals who are able to participate in the discussion.
– positive effects of at-large districts could come at the cost of forgoing some of the positive effects of geographic districts, including
1) promoting a greater awareness of district specific issues,
2) giving residents a direct connection to their geographic alder and making resident engagement easier,
3) making it easier for alders to directly interface with particular neighborhood groups or associations.
g. Compensation levels for alders.
– Subcommittee agreed that they generally view the position of alder as being one of service, not profession — thus affirming the traditional Madison view of the Council — suggesting that pay should not be the primary feature of the position.
h. Support staff for alders.
– would reduce time pressure on alders and effectively be an increase in compensation.
i. Alders service to BCCs.
– referred to other subcommittee
j. Staggered alder terms.
– reached consensus that the TFOGS should recommend against moving to staggered terms
k. Redistricting considerations and diversity representation after the 2020 Census.
– no recommendation
l. Power to appoint alders to BCCs.
– The Subcommittee deferred this issue to the BCC Subcommittee.
m. Power to appoint residents to BCCs.
– The Subcommittee deferred this issue to the BCC Subcommittee.
n. Alders serving as chairs of BCCs.
– The Subcommittee deferred this issue to the BCC Subcommittee.
o. Structural and procedural issues relating to equity and meaningful engagement of residents in council decision-making.
Challenges they noted were
– Long meetings
– Public comment might not be its most impactful
– Locational challenges
– Robert’s Rules
– Physical layout of the chambers
These are some of their potential solutions
- Provide day care for people attending meetings.
- Validate parking for people attending meetings.
- Do proclamations at another time, possibly at 5:30 p.m. before the legislative business begins at 6:30 p.m.
- Allow videos to be submitted for testimony.
- Allow live public participation at Council meetings by electronic means such as the internet or from remote centers of the city.
- Allow public comments on agenda items to be considered in advance of a meeting by allowing individuals to register in favor or opposed through a system that notifies residents of decisions to be made and asks for input.
- Separate Public testimony from legislative debate and action by allowing individuals to provide input at the beginning of Council meetings regardless of when the item on which they wish to speak is taken up by the Council. This may prevent residents from leaving the meeting when their item is not taken up until late at night.
- Vary meeting locations.
- Make written comments available to the public and Council members at the time of the meeting.
- Avoid late-night meetings. Reduce overall length of meetings.
- Adhere to and/or change current rules regarding the length of alder statements at Common Council meetings.
- Improve accessibility of Legistar.
- Create way for people to provide input in Legistar or some other appropriate platform.
- Provide classes for the public to learn how to use Legistar.
- On city website, allow option for having a chat with a city employee who can direct a resident in the right direction should they have an issue or question about government services.
- Continue working towards having 311 number for city services.
- Maintain subscription lists for Common Council and BCC items so that residents can be made aware of issues coming before a body through an email blast or text message.
- Review customer relation software options that may create better processes for residents to navigate city services, such as through ticketing system where issues are ticketed, followed up on my staff, and then the results reported back to the person requesting the service.
- Consider the option of bifurcating public testimony and legislative sessions.
- Add more than just the name of meetings to the city calendar so that more information can be obtained with 1 click, instead of requiring multiple clicks to get relevant and substantive information about a meeting.
- Consider the possibility of creating an Office of Resident Engagement and Neighborhood Support (ORENS).
- Consider incorporating specific recommendations from the Austin (TX) 2016 Engagement Study, which focuses on five major themes: 1) Make information clear, relevant and easily accessible; 2) Make it easier for people to give input in ways that are convenient, accessible and appropriate for them; 3) Explain how input will be used and show how that input had an impact on the decision made; 4) Ensure that everyone who cares about an issue or is impacted has an opportunity to engage; and 5) Ensure that City staff has the support, training, tools and resources to do engagement well. For a complete list of specific recommendations consider reviewing Austin’s engagement report.
They also identified that they wanted IT improvements.
WHAT IS ORENS?
It’s called the Office of Resident Engagement and Neighborhood Support or ORENS. I think the name may change at some point, they struggled with what to call it.
It is indeed a “DRAFT PROPOSAL (Changes after 2-5 BCC Sub meeting)” That comes with a disclaimer.
[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=”12″]{DISCLAIMER: The subcommittee recognized that staff from existing departments could not be moved into a new department without considering replacing the staff that move or reconsidering the duties expected of the department from which they moved}[/perfectpullquote]
This is that report
[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=”12″] A recurring theme arising from the work of the Task Force on the Structure of City Government has been the need for better representation on Common Council and on City of Madison boards, commissions and committees from people of color and those living with low incomes. TFOGS has identified many barriers to participation, including:
- times and places of city meetings
- requirements for in-person participation
- lack of child care and adequate transportation
- uneven quality of training and support for members
- uneven level of staff support and resources amongst boards, commissions and committees
- unclear purpose of some boards, commissions and committees
- unclear expectations of board, commission and committee members
- difficulty in understanding and using Legistar
- general lack of civic education/knowledge about city government
- heavy workload of Alders
- historical housing patterns and current landlord practices that result in high mobility of people earning low incomes, many of whom are people of color and women raising their children without a partner
Additionally, in considering the current work-load of Alders, TFOGS subcommittees have noted that the time and work commitments for membership on boards, commissions and committees are significant, leading to questions about compensation levels and whether or not the position should be considered a full time job. TFOGS subcommittees also heard that city staff are overburdened with the work of supporting boards, commissions and committees and public engagement, pulling them away from other work commitments.
This proposal seeks to address these concerns through the establishment of an Office of Resident Engagement and Neighborhood Support (ORENS). The ORENS would be jointly supervised by the Mayor and the Common Council Executive Committee, since both offices have strong, practical interests in constituent engagement and community direction for city initiatives. This new structure of shared responsibility would be an innovation in city government that strongly promotes cooperation between the Mayor and the Council while maintaining the integrity, distinctive character and powers of each branch of government.
The Office would be an independent office of the City, to be headed by one director who would be a CG-21 employee chosen by the process for Department and Division Heads.
While the City of Madison purports to place a high value on resident participation, racial equity and social justice in government, there is much room for improvement in how these values are actualized. The ORENS would combine many already- existing staff positions into one office that is singularly focused on creating racial equity and social justice through training, support, facilitation and outreach to enable residents to engage at various levels of policy development and project implementation while removing barriers to participation.
ORENS functions would include:
- Recruitment of and communication with potential board, commission and committee members
- Orientation, training and support of board, commission and committee chairs and members
- Administrative support for boards, commissions and committees
- Training of staff, Alders, and board, commission and committee members in Legistar
- City-wide and District-specific communications on behalf of Council, Mayor and other city departments with no communication staff, including coordinating responses by the City-wide public information officer
- Organization and facilitation of neighborhood and community meetings
- Outreach and education about city initiatives in collaboration with other city agencies
- Organizational support for community-led initiatives
- Engage and advocate for new ways for residents to participate in decision making and give prompt and direct feedback on issues that people have expressed interest in
- Facilitate annual evaluation of boards, commissions and committees
- Provide Language access services
Already-existing staff positions that might be brought under the umbrella of ORENS include:
- Constituent Service staff – Common Council office
- Neighborhood Resource Officer – Mayor’s office
- Administrative Coordinator in charge of boards, commissions and committees – Mayor’s office
- Racial Equity and Social Justice Coordinator – Department of Civil Rights
- Neighborhood Planner (x2?) – Planning
- Community Building & Engagement staff (x2?) – Community Development
- Organizational Development staff (x2?) – Human Resources
- City-wide Public Information Officer – proposed new position
- Other administrative support staff (3-4) – TBD
- IT staff ?
- Language access staff
- City Channel? [/perfectpullquote]
CONCLUSION
Let the games begin! And I say that because really, no matter what structure, many of the issues they are trying to resolve will just create other issues. I’m not sure that the structure is actually the problem, its the people and what the people do. You know there will be more blogs to follow . . .
