The CDBG commission refused to take a position on the hiring of Bill Clingan for the Economic and Community Development Unit Director. Something which, to me, helps to diminish the value of our citizen committees. However, I suppose, they also made a good point, which I’m afraid will be lost on many.
First of all, the commission had no information on which to make a decision. They hadn’t seen the applications or job description or even the vision statement. That did provide them with a dilemma, as it was difficult to make an informed decision that was meaningful. However, the commission did note that they had seen some of the emails and that they had faith in the hiring process. (I don’t! But that’s a different HUGE can of worms.) And so they wanted to just not vote.
I urged them to vote. By passing on the opportunity to weigh in on hiring Bill Clingan for the position of the Economic and Community Development Unit Director they were passing on a whole host of other policy issues that have gotten wrapped up in the decisions to hire him. This decision is likely more about what we see as a vision for Economic and Community Development. Is Economic development purely about recruiting businesses to Madison, or is it more than that. Is Community Development equally important to Economic Development, or is Economic Development the only thing that is important in this new unit? Are we going to go ahead with this position as it is, or should it really be broken up into two positions and was the reorganization plan flawed? Even worse, by passing on voting, it is likely to be interpreted that they don’t care, or that Community Development isn’t significantly important. Or that somehow the only thing that matters with Economic Development is business recruitment.
I also thought that when the council refers something to a body and they don’t act, it kind of diminishes the value of the committee process. Something that I think is happening more and more as people are removed from committees for disagreeing with the Mayor and committees are skipped by the Common Council voting on an issue before the committee even has a chance. And, all you are likely to see in the paper is x number of committees voted “for” and x number of committees voted “against”. And there wouldn’t be any explanation of the finer points.
However, they did make a good point. Their point being, this isn’t a good process. Citizen committees shouldn’t be participating in a hiring process. The process should work on it’s own and if there is something with the process, it should be fixed. But having personnel decisions made by committees isn’t a good way to do business.
Here’s the notes from their meeting:
Referred the issue of confirmation of the Director of Economic and Community Development back to the Council based on the conclusion that the CDBG Commission and other City commissions were essentially policy bodies, and not established to deal with issues of personnel. The Commission adopted the following statement in support of Mayoral discretion in the appointment of City managers:
We believe the issue of Mayoral hiring of the Economic and Community Development Unit Director is a matter of personnel, and not a matter of community development policy per se. We therefore respectfully return the referral to the Council and suggest that it act with dispatch on the confirmation of the mayoral nominee.
The rules for hiring of civil service personnel are established within the Human Resources Department. We support the discretion of the Mayor in selecting individuals for key management positions within the context of these rules and urge the Council to establish clear standards of accountability for Mayoral and Department performance. We believe the best way to accomplish this level of accountability is through the establishment of City objectives and a routine system of performance evaluation, rather than an extended nomination process.
As a Commission, we stand ready and eager to work with the new Unit Director on issues of policy related to community development, such as the refinement of long terms goals for the community development program or the specific terms of the developer agreement for the Allied neighborhood.
Ironically, at this same meeting, where they passed on a personnel issue, they also had a discussion about their (lack of a role) role in policy decisions for the Allied Drive area. They make a good point, the right things aren’t being referred to the right committees.
