I video recorded the last meetings of the Task Force on Government Structure and their two subcommittees on Boards Committees and Commission and the subcommittee on the Common Council. Both subcommittees reported back to the main committee and have written reports on their identification of which issues they think should be looked at and what alternatives they might have. So I’ve included those reports as well. The subcommittees meet again today and tomorrow to continue their work.
Subcommittee on Boards Committees and Commissions
In addition to their report, they have drafted up various ways that the committees might be restructured. To me, they are leaning more towards a county board model, where some committee have a lot or all alders, and then other committees with more residents and they report to the committees with more elected officials. One plan was drawn up by committee member John Rothschild and is called the Rothschild plan. Another two were by the city attorney’s office, City Attorney Alternative and City Attorney Alternative 2. All the materials from this subcommittee are here.
Here’s their report
Boards, Commissions, and Committees Subcommittee Update to the Task Force on Government Structure
January 16, 2019The Purpose of this document is to update the full Task Force on Government Structure (“TFOGS”) on the work of the Subcommittee on the Common Council and the Subcommittee on Boards, Commissions, and Committees.
Each Subcommittee should answer the following questions with a brief narrative or series of bullet points that will update the TFOGS on the work of the subcommittee and generate discussion at the next full TFOGS meeting.1. How many times has the Subcommittee met since the last TFOGS meeting?
Four (4): 10/24/18; 11/19/18; 12/3/18; 12/12/182. Briefly describe the process used by the Subcommittee to identify and examine issues relevant to the Subcommittee’s topic area.
The Subcommittee developed a work plan that required it to: 1) discuss the current structure of the City’s BCCs, 2) identify the strengths and potential of the current structure, 3) identify the challenges of and potential alternatives to the current structure; and 4) issues related to appointment to and service on BCCs.
3. List the key issues identified by the subcommittee as being most important Subcommittee’s examination of its topic area.
– High number of BCCs in current structure.
– Lack of diversity of members serving on BCCs (Less than 25% of members are people of color; 38% of members (267/699) come from Districts 4, 6, 11, 13, and 19 while 12.5% of members (88/699) come from Districts 1, 7, 8, 9, and 16).
– Whether time, place, rules, and procedures of meetings help or hinder resident participation.
– Whether BCCs represent a true forum for resident participation and whether other forms of resident participation may be better forums.
– Role of BCCs not always well defined.
– Lack of training for chairs and members.
– Quality of product produced by BCCs varies among BCCs.
– Service on and to BCCs require lots of alder and staff time.
– Staffing: Uniformity and expectations, accountability, responsibilities, resource allocation, reporting requirements, etc.
– Lack of authority? Wasn’t it more of the issue of variance
– Disparities in authority? Lack of clarity re: authority
– Large number of vacancies.
– Accountability.
– BCC relevance and redundancy.4. When discussing the key issues listed above, what themes or patterns of thought
emerged among subcommittee members?
A number of themes and patterns of thought have emerged among subcommittee members. Following are the four themes that have seen the most robust discussion:
1. The subcommittee has generally agreed that the current number of BCCs is too high. As a result, the subcommittee has discussed how the existing structure can be cumbersome, time consuming for all involved (including alders, members, staff, and residents), redundant, and at times unproductive.
2. The subcommittee has generally agreed that although nearly 100 BCCs with over 700 possible membership opportunities would appear to create a robust forum for resident participation, the opposite appears to be true in Madison. The lack of diversity on BCCs both in terms of people of color and variety of districts suggests the existing structure serves as a forum of participation for some residents, but certainly not all. As a result, the existing structure appears to serve as little more a veneer of resident participation.
3. The subcommittee has generally agreed that issues related to organization, purpose, staffing, training, and whether a BCC has a well-defined purpose and authority / influence vary greatly among BCCs and that this can result in some BCCs that are productive others that are not. Furthermore, it is not clear that there are clearly defined parameters regarding authority, or that the decision-making authorities of one BCC relative to another are equal or clearly defined.
4. The subcommittee generally agreed that the existing manner in which BCC meetings are run (time, place, rules, and procedures) may serve as a barrier to service or participation for a significant portion of the city’s residents.5. As the discussion of these key issues evolved, did the Subcommittee identify potential improvements to the city’s current government structure that might address the issues identified? If so, please describe any alternatives discussed by the Subcommittee.
The subcommittee has discussed a number of alternatives that may help address some of the challenges identified, including:
– 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.
– 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.
– Office of community representation; responsible for staffing, training, minutes/reporting, liaison with citizens and general response.
– Greater use of ad-hoc committees, with clearly defined mission, authorities, oversight, staffing and reporting requirements
– Committees have more representation and greater clarity of authority6. Are there any issues that the subcommittee has found particularly difficult? If so, what are they?
Whether the mayor, council, or a combination of both should appoint BCC members.7. The full TFOGS would like a formal report from the Subcommittee in March. Does the Subcommittee have any questions in particular it would like the full TFOGS to address or discuss before March?
Many of the issues relative to BCCs intersect with work being performed by the Subcommittee on the Common Council. How would the Task Force like the Subcommittees to deal with those issues?
Subcommittee on the Common Council
All the materials for this subcommittee can be found here.
Here’s their report
Common Council Subcommittee Update to the Task Force on Government Structure
January 16, 2019The Purpose of this document is to update the full Task Force on Government Structure (“TFOGS”) on the work of the Subcommittee on the Common Council and the Subcommittee on Boards, Commissions, and Committees.
Each Subcommittee should answer the following questions with a brief narrative or series of bullet points that will update the TFOGS on the work of the subcommittee and generate discussion at the next full TFOGS meeting.1. How many times has the Subcommittee met since the last TFOGS meeting?
Five (5): 11/2/18; 11/16/2018; 11/30/18; 12/7/18; 12/14/182. Briefly describe the process used by the Subcommittee to identify and examine issues relevant to the Subcommittee’s topic area.
The Subcommittee created a work plan covering four topic/issue areas (see below) and generally discussed one topic area per meeting.3. List the key issues identified by the subcommittee as being most important Subcommittee’s examination of its topic area.
The subcommittee used the issues identified in the Resolution creating the Task Force to inform the topics and issues it would discuss:Topic Area 1
1. Full vs. Part time alders or hybrid
2. Alder Terms (2 v 4 years)
3. Number of Alders/Districts
4. Staggered TermsTopic Area 2
5. At-large vs. Geographic Districts or hybrid or numbered districts.
6. Term limits.
7. Redistricting considerations including diversity representation.Topic Area 3
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.Topic Area 4
12. Appointment of Council Members to BCCs.
13. Appointment of residents to BCCs.
14. Council Members as Chairs of BCCs.
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.4. When discussing the key issues listed above, did any themes or patterns of thought emerge among subcommittee members? If so, what were they?
– Many of the issues listed above (and therefore in the Resolution creating the Task Force) are so interrelated that recommending a change in one area/issue will require recommending changes in others. For example, the subcommittee noted that switching to a Common Council comprised of full-time alders (Topic Area 1) would require a reduction in the number of districts/alders (Topic Area 1) and, very likely, the provision of additional staff for alders (Topic 3).
– Despite the interrelatedness of the issues, the subcommittee believes that any overall recommendations the full Task Force makes should take into account the pros and cons of making changes to each specific issue or topic area so that the Task Force can be aware of and balance the overall pros and cons. For example, one subcommittee member mentioned that if the Task Force recommends, say, moving to at-large districts as a way of addressing the negative impacts of parochialism (viewed as a con of having geographic districts), then it should take into account the degree to which such a change will impact alders being able to individually connect with members of a geographical district (viewed as a pro of having geographic districts). Thus, for each issue, the subcommittee compiled a list of pros and cons to making changes in each topic area so that the subcommittee and Task Force could return to these if and when they develop ultimate recommendations on a particular topic or issue. These pros and cons are listed specifically in the meeting minutes.
– In considering specific alternatives, the subcommittee and Task Force should also address underlying philosophical issues that relate to the purpose and function of city government. For example, in consider whether to have full-time alders or increase alder pay, the subcommittee and Task Force should consider more basic questions, such as whether we view membership on the Common Council a “government job” or a “volunteer public service.”
– Though the subcommittee has yet to formulate a range of possible alternative
structures that may address the issues raised by the resolution, it did generally agree on some possible things that could help create more equitable and meaningful engagement of residents in council-decision making, including:
— Provide day care.
— Validate parking.
— 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. o 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 people from leaving the meeting when their item is not taken up until late at night.
— Vary meeting locations.
— Reconsider rule requiring 24 hour notice for BCC members to appear by telephone if state open meetings rules are ever changed.
— Make written comments available to the public and Council members at the time of the meeting.
— Review and incorporate some of the suggestions from the Austin (TX) 2016 Engagement Study.
— 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.
— 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 ways to have video testimony/participation at Common Council meetings.
— Review agenda setting procedures.
— 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 community representation/engagement.5. As the discussion of these key issues evolved, did the Subcommittee identify potential improvements to the city’s current government structure that might address the issues identified? If so, please describe any alternatives discussed by the Subcommittee and any pros and cons to implementing such an alternative.
See 4. above.6. Are there any issues that the subcommittee has found particularly difficult? If so, what are they?
Whether the number of alders on the Council should be changed and whether alders should be full or part-time.
Whether districting should be geographic or at-large.
Whether this Subcommittee or the Subcommittee on BCCs or the entire TFOGS should be the body to primarily discuss and address the appointment of members to BCCs.
Whether this Subcommittee or the Subcommittee on BCCs or the entire TFOGS should be the body to primarily discuss issues related to the Mayor’s office.7. The full TFOGS would like a formal report from the Subcommittee in March. Does the Subcommittee have any questions in particular it would like the full TFOGS to address or discuss before March?
See 6. above.
Full Task Force Meeting – Discussing the Subcommittee Reports
They have a unique way of dealing with legistar, so this will be new to some people, it was certainly new to me. All of their materials can be found by starting here. Once I figured it out, it makes some sense – but only if you know what they are discussing in the various subcommittees. It’s designed for people involved in the process, not the person looking for the “Rothschild plan” that they referred to at a meeting.
Also, I have to laugh, when they complain about having too many city committees, and they created so many for their group. Or when they say the meetings should be recorded, and they stopped recording their own. So many ironies.
Video –
