City Council pays lip service to Increasing Transparency in Government
We have been pushing, even fighting 
, for a long time now to get more and better transparency in Burlington City Government (Administration, Departments, Sister and Owned Organizations, City Council, City Commissions and City Boards). Many people have been working on this in tandem. This push for transparency usually only shows its public head about specific issues such as Westlake, Appletree Point, Institutional Construction, etc.
We should be very gratified that all of our efforts and protestations have moved the City Council on Monday, 24 Mar 2008, to pass a resolution titled “Increasing Transparency In Government” unanimously. That is the good news and we should all thank the Council for passing that Resolution.
The not so good news is the Resolution is really a sop to everything we have been pushing to have. Even the method of selection of people to be on its Ad Hoc Committee to “develop recommendations” to “increase transparency” is flawed in the extreme. The point of transparency in government is to give the public ALL of the information a topic, pro and con, left and right, up and down, so there is nothing hidden. The next step is to have the appropriate part of government not only get public input about the topic, but also consider that input carefully and then vote as their conscience dictates. It is important for those of us not in government to keep remembering that the people in government are the ones that vote, not us, so while we deserve the information and have the right to give our opinions, ultimately it is up to them to vote or decide the way they feel they should.
Since transparency is directly for the public, there needs to be much more transparency and openness about how to organize the Ad Hoc Committee on Transparency than is in the City Council Resolution. The Resolution says the public will be represented by five people chosen by the Mayor and two chosen City Councilors. How much more controlled could the process be? Instead the process should be to go to the public and have them choose who their representatives should be on the Ad Hoc Committee. Since we have just had a citywide election, and are not going to have another one until November, our next most public venue is our Neighborhood Planning Assemblies in every Ward. Have each NPA elect two people to sit on the Ad Hoc Committee. That would be representative.
Then have the City Council nominate Councilors to be on the Ad Hoc Committee in open session and have the whole Council vote on who the two Committee Members should be. What could be more open than that?
Starting the Ad Hoc Committee with a good foundation is crucial to its success. Selecting its members any other way than by election would smack too much of a closed and controlled process.
Friends,
I was not able to attend the June 23 meeting, and I am submitting comments after reading the minutes, along with suggestions related to form and content of the draft minutes. I can only comment on form/content of the minutes, as I was not present I don’t know if they are accurate. Others need to be sure their comments are included, and summarized accurately.
The agenda was amended the agenda to reflect that Jonathan Leopold will not be presenting????
Margaret Bozik asked that Item #6 be broadened. Joan Shannon wants to add an item to determine
whether another meeting of the Committee will be required. The motion passes unanimously.
Motion: What is #6? What item did Joan want to add? What was the motion that passed? At the very least, minutes have to include the exact wording of motions, who made it, who seconded it, and the vote. A summary of discussion is always informative, too.
Carol Duncan Presentation on Capital Projects: What does this have to do with Open Government? It’s interesting, but with a report deadline of July, why is the committee using it’s meeting time to hear presentations like this? It reads like the person is at the wrong meeting, like maybe they should be at an NPA meeting, or reporting to City Council. What does this have to do with Open Government and transparency issues? And what does it COST to have city employees at the OGC meeting?
Committees: Margaret B. suggests that each Committee provide 2 or 3 priorities. What Committees? And what happens to the issues that do not make the priority list? Previously, the comment was made that people who aren’t there can submit comments in writing, and that’s what I’m doing.
Committee members’ list of priorities: online availability of information; input into major development projects; improved notice of meetings; CEDO Citizen [Oversight] Commission; wider circle of notification depending on size/impact of a development; role-call voting at City Council; posting information about development projects [as early as possible]; post development projects on website with RSS feed and email list-server option; all documents currently in MSWord data-based so they are more easily searchable; wider circle of development notification; CEDO citizen Commission; getting information out from CEDO. Minutes need to identify the speaker as a committee member.
What about people who don’t have access to a computer? Everyone has access to City websites through the public library. Reference librarians are there to help people find it. The slower, more costly option of going to each department to ask for information to be copied, or calling and ask for it to be mailed, still exists.
Identify needs, assess costs: NEEDS: You have a good needs list, but it could have been compiled by reviewing Open Forum in city council meetings in the past year. As for COST: Business uses quality control because they know it is least costly to do it right the first time. It costs far more to correct mistakes, go to court, do it over, etc. For example, the present system of sending out a Gov’t Meetings calendar, then going online, clicking agenda and minutes, getting a phone contact, calling, no one there so you leave a message, go online and search some more….. Someone calls you back, you ask the question or request a copy to be mailed –time, money, aggravation — all costs that need to be considered. The problem is that the availability of information does not pass the transparency test today, and the city has to do better. What was the cost of the Westlake debacle? What is the cost of all the city staff at this meeting? What did it cost for an entire department to attend appeals of lack of Code Enforcement? What does it cost when decisions are overturned on appeal? It is least costly to do it right the first time, and this committee is gathering information about how to do that. With tight budgets and taxes that must not go any higher, city departments have to do it right the first time!
Public/staff add to the priorities list: access to information for people who do not speak English or have web access; central listing of events public and private; open process of appointing residents to boards; PR effort to make people aware of what information is available; problem with trust; need to demonstrate open communication. If I had been present, I would have listed my top three “trust the process issues” as being related to development review, code enforcement, and CEDO — because I have been participating in process associated with a development in my neighborhood, reported violations of the Zoning Ordinance and Municipal Code, and Westlake. I am particularly concerned about points Wayne Senville raised about CEDO going planning for the City instead of the Planning Commission. At a recent NPA meeting about future development, the Planning Commission brought the Municipal Development Plan and CEDO brought the Consolidated Plan.
Development, Zoning, Code Enforcement and CEDO are hotspots. Include Code Enforcement in development. I agree.
Committee needs to determine what the Mission of the Committee: No wonder it’s hard to figure out what this committee’s purpose is! The committee hasn’t decided yet. Wasn’t there reference to a charge that the City Council gave to the Committee? I’ve requested it but have not received it.
Several people sent in written comments after this meeting. They can be summarized at the end of the minutes. There was discussion about whether watching on Ch17, or reading minutes, and then submitting comments was encouraged, and as I recall it was. Shouldn’t that be part of the meeting record?
Agenda: How about an agenda with times; Open Forum for residents to speak; specific discussion items listed and timed; descriptions of presentations if any are scheduled; and time before closing for public comment and reflection at the end?
Request: Could Ita or Beth facilitate the next meeting?
Respectfully submitted,
Lea Terhune
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 10:32 PM
Subject: Re: Open Government Committee, meeting agenda
You have omitted Public Comment on the agenda. I presume that was an oversight.
I want to follow up, in writing, on the confusion regarding transparency issues at Code Enforcement. Ben, you thought the discussion did not belong in the notes because it seemed to you to be a performance problem, not a process/transparency problem. The transparency issue is this — the CE Director is enforcing a code that is in her head, NOT the Municipal Code as written. Enforcement has to be according to the Code (which is the law, in a system that runs on rule of law), everyone treated equally according to the Code. Nothing is more opaque than a Code that exists in someone’s head, unless you are a mind reader. Example: When I called to discuss concerns, they told me there were no ordinances related to my concerns. Regarding an abandoned swimming pool: a fence around the swimming pool, that’s all that was required; and if I saw children jumping the fence to catch frogs in the pool, I should call the police because the children are tresspassing. When I called to ask about neglected maintenance and unlocked doors, heavy black plastic partially submerged in the pool, brush and debris in the yard, dead tree limbs and other fire hazardous conditions, I was told there was nothing CE could do. According to the Code in the Director’s head, there wasn’t. BUT according to the Vacant Building Code, all my concerns could have been addressed. I couldn’t figure this out, until the secret was revealed at a Public Works Commission appeal hearing — the Director enforces a Code in her head!
Second transparency issue is the fact that permit conditions, which used to be enforced by Planning and Zoning, are supposedly now enforced by the Director with the Code in her head. Public Works Commission has oversight when the Code issues are related to stormwater or fire hazards, and the Board of Health has oversight on health issues. But permit conditions, like Westlake’s permit conditions — those are enforced by the Director with the Code in her head, with oversight by…. the Mayor? We haven’t seen the MOU so we aren’t sure, but if this is true it is definitely a transparency issue because review boards issue permits with conditions all the time and they (and the nieghbors) can’t figure out why they aren’t monitored or enforced. Strathmore homes still have illegal temporary CO’s after 20plus years because of no code enforcement! Please dig for this MOU and let’s get this problem out into the light of day. There is a huge lack of trust in the Code Enforcement process. Taxpayers pay the bills for CE, and CE is waiving fees under highly suspicious circumstances. Let this see the light of day! It IS a transparency issue.
It wasn’t a one-time occurrence, a performance slip up. It has been systematic. CE Director told PWC that it’s always been done this way (for example, accepting undated, unsigned, incomplete, inaccurate vacant permit applications, and illegally waiving the fee). The Vacant Building Code says the City Council finds and declares certain municipal Code requirements. They are not being followed. Does the Council know that? Does the Mayor know that? Many, many people in the city know it. Council and Mayor should know it, and if they don’t, there is a transparency problem!
Lea Terhune