Disbanding the City Commissions –
Bad Idea or “Bold Change”?
Sedona AZ (July 8, 2013) – Originally, I had no intention of writing a guest perspective regarding the recent Council decision to disband our City Commissions by a vote of 4 to 3. As one of the three members of Council that opposed the motion to disband the commissions, I felt that I should honor the majority decision. That being said, I feel a need to respond to the Vice Mayor DiNunzio’s guest perspective entitled “Commission Vote Was To Improve Involvement” in order to provide a little more information and thought about the background of this issue.
I agree with the Vice Mayor on a number of points. All of the Council members concur that the current structure of the City Commissions needed to be reviewed. In fact most, if not all of City Commissioners agree that the efficiency, productivity and staff time that is spent on recording, monitoring and carrying out commission work programs is problematic. For that reason, the City Council directed staff to study the Commission structure and to make recommendations to Council on possible strategies to improve that structure.
The solution that staff proposed was to disband the commissions and create a “civic engagement process,” based on a model that the City of Marana created in 2011 called the Marana Citizen’s Forum. This forum is made up of 20 community members including representatives of various community organizations. This group of people held two year terms and are tasked with “addressing multidisciplinary issues facing the town”. You may view more information by looking up the Town of Marana’s web site at wwwmarana.com
When I considered this model, a number of questions came to my mind. Why are we following a model that was created by a city that is very different from Sedona…..Different demographics, different visions and core principles? Why did Marana disband their commissions? Was there a lack of citizen participation? Why is Marana the only city in the State that has disbanded their commissions?
Vice Mayor DiNunzio stated in his article that “there is confusion and concern among some in our community about the City Council decision to eliminate some standing commissions”. Let’s examine why there is confusion and concern in our community. A majority of the Council voted to disband the Commissions on August 1st. Additionally, they voted to oppose the formation of “standing committees”. This action brings up additional questions. Isn’t the Marana model based on the formation of a standing committee? The Sedona City Council voted to disallow the formation of standing committees. What kind of message are we sending to our community by disbanding commissions that have existed since the incorporation of our city? What alternatives for citizen engagement are available if we are disbanding the commissions and are opposed to the formation of standing committees? Why isn’t our goal to improve the structure of our commissions instead of disbanding them?
The City Council has directed staff to create an “action plan” that is designed to create a new model for resident involvement. Members of current commissions are supposed to be included in this discussion. Presently, no one knows what this model will look like. Will it “improve and increase” citizen involvement? Will it embrace “forward thinking” ideas about the arts, sustainability, historic preservation and housing from our citizenry? Will it provide a means by which the budget practices of the city will be transparent and accountable? I truly hope so.
There will be a Council/Public meeting on July 18th at the Sedona Public Library, beginning at 6:00 p.m. The public will have an opportunity to express their thoughts regarding this topic at that meeting.
The comments, questions and opinions that I have made in this article are mine alone and may not reflect the values, beliefs or opinions of the City Council or the City staff.
Rob Adams, Mayor
City of Sedona
8 Comments
Dear Arts Advocates, Artists and Friends:
On Wednesday, May 29th, in a special meeting the City Council voted 4 to 3 to eliminate the Sedona Arts and Culture commission and the Art in Public Places Committee (as well as, the Historic Preservation Commission, the Parks and Recreation commission, the budget oversight commission, the housing commission and the sustainability commission and committees).
They did this because, according to the City staff, the commissions required too much time, had a “silo effect” (the commissions did not communicate with each other) and they wanted to reduce the budget. The staff proposed eliminating the commissions, and hiring a part time Art & Culture Coordinator (requiring a High School Degree to manage Arts Education, the Mayors Arts Awards, Art in Public Places, 1% for arts program) and a part time volunteer Coordinator (to set up a volunteer pool of citizens for task force projects). Unless a re-vote occurs, This decision will go into effect on August 1st,.
Normally a City stably sits on three legs: The City Council who decides policy, and guides the direction of the City; The City manager and staff who engage in the daily work of running the City and following the council’s direction; and the Citizen Volunteer Commissions and Committees, who willingly and without pay, work for the city, and give the City Council and Staff feedback as to what the Citizens want in the City, and what is important for a city to have. By knocking out this citizen leg, they are knocking out citizen feed back and input.
If you love your city and want to see it flourish as an arts Community, we all need to take a stand here. We could together inspire some creative thinking in regard to this issue. Just getting back the commissions is not enough, a new proposal with city councilors, staff and citizens input needs to occur.
On July 18th, at 6:00pm at the Sedona Public Library The mayor and City Council invite the public to speak to how they feel about this decision. As a believer in the importance of a city “animated by the Arts” having an Art Commission, I ask you to come speak to this issue. It is important that we show up at this meeting and let the council know how we all feel. For those of you that are heads of a 501c3, you can speak to this issue as an individual, not a director. Since many people are on vacation in the summer, if you can not come to this meeting, you could write a letter or email to the council. Their address is City Council, 102 Roadrunner Drive, Sedona, AZ 86336.
Here are their group emails: blitrell@sedonaaz.gov , dmcilroy@sedonaaz.gov , mward@sedonaaz.gov , mdinunzio@sedonaaz.gov , jwilliamson@sedonaaz.gov, radams@sedonaaz.gov , jmartinez@sedonaaz.gov
Your letter could be a simple as this:
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Councilors:
I would like to see the decision of May 29th., to eliminate the Sedona Arts Commission (and other commissions) overturned, before August 1st, 2013.
Sincerely, _____________________
Thank you for taking the time to read this very long [comment]. If you have any further questions, please contact me.
Thinking about our arts community,
Nancy
I vote for “bad idea” over “bold change”
Given the way the City of Sedona continues to pull back from the Arts, maybe having the City completely out of the Arts business is actually a good idea. Then no one would have to fret about whether the City was going to support an effort, and we could all just ignore them and use energy in more positive ways.
An artist friend of mine has suggested a new slogan for Sedona; ” A City Eliminating the Arts”. Seems a better fit than the current one about illumination.
I am glad to see that the Council will meet at the Library and invite the public to weigh in on this important subject. It should have been done earlier but later is better that never.
Seeking out and following the will of the majority of the people of Sedona on important issues is the right way to govern.
Thank you, Mayor Adams, for that thoughtful re-cap and explaination of the arts commission dilemma. I will be there at the meeting.
While I appreciate the mayor’s response and agree with much of his presented viewpoint, there are several other issues that I feel haven’t been thoroughly brought to light.
1. This is all about MONEY, pure and simple! The proponents of discontinuing the commissions clearly explained their rationale. Direct quotes to that effect by councilors during council meetings are available. An Alternative proposal was offered by staff in response to Council’s request “to study the Commission structure and to make recommendations to Council on possible strategies to improve that structure”. An alternative recommendation was to hire 2 additional Community Development personnel in order to support the existing commissions and make them more effective and efficient. The estimated cost of this option was $200,000 vs. a supposed savings of $100,000 by eliminating the commissions. We find ourselves in this situation based upon Council’s inability and/or unwillingness to re-prioritize the net difference, $300,000 out of a city budget of $36,145,299 (.83%). Yes, for less than 1% of the city budget, the Commissions could have remained in place, and become more efficient and effective. The community needs to know and understand this fact.
2. Every City Commission is different! Every year, as 3-year staggered terms expire, new commissioners are added, previous ones leave, so interpersonal dynamics and expertise changes. Therefore, one cannot even characterize a particular commission over time. Council has chosen not to address any specific challenges they may perceive relative to a given commission, instead treating them as if they all had the same dynamic, the same problems, required equal support, etc. One size supposedly fits all, and one solution, disbanding, is the answer.
3. The City Council, having created each Commission, established their responsibilities by resolution and/or ordinance, appointed each commissioner and met with them semi-annually to approve new and review ongoing individual work programs, should be held directly responsible for any failures on the part of commissions. Management – those who made all the rules, agreed to the plans and hired the people…are the folks accountable for the results, not the commissioners who are attempting to follow council’s stated directions. Rather than addressing each perceived issue and fixing/improving it, the easy, cheaper answer is to eliminate it entirely. Poof – no problem!
4. Another major culprit besides money in the decision to disband and replace commissions was the “Open Meeting Law” (OML). It requires specific advance posting of meeting dates, times and place so the public can attend. It requires posting of an agenda so the public knows the topics to be discussed. It requires the taking of notes of any official actions taken. It also prohibits the interactions of a majority of commissioners outside of officially announced and agendized meetings (yes, a constriction of ideal efficiency). Council believes these are onerous requirements of a council-appointed commission structure, and of course need to avoided in the interest of saving staff time (MONEY). Council will now play a game. They will nominally give up direct supervision of replacement “new citizen groups” and turn that process over to staff (at least theoretically avoiding the strictures of the OML). However, the staff and citizen groups will only do what City Council wants done. Huh? I call that “gaming the system” and very circular reasoning!
In the interest of full disclosure, I am, or was, a member of a dynamic, knowledgable, involved and self motivated group of 9 volunteers otherwise known as the Sedona Sustainability Commission, although I speak only for myself. As a former city councilman, I participated in, and strongly supported the formation of 2 Commissions, namely the Youth Commission (now defunct) and the Housing Commission. In both cases, a commission was formed to address and recommend programs that would benefit the community and for which the City Council had no concentrated expertise. The Sustainability Commission was established a mere 2 1/2 years ago for similar reasons and to address issues that have become paramount via citizen expression in the new Community Plan development process. I wonder how we as a city will accomplish the stated goal in the Council approved Resolution 2010-28, “…the City Council wishes to see Sedona become a national leader in sustainable practices”.
From the same Resolution, I also wonder who will “Advise on policy matters related to sustainable practices including:
* Energy (demand, supply)
* Air (quality)
* Water (consumption, supply, quality, wastewater, grey water, policy and education)
* Waste (composting, reuse, recycle)
* Green Infrastructure (parks, open space, agriculture/food supply)
* Built Environment (green zoning and building codes, building design)
* Transportation (transit, bike, pedestrian, vehicles)
* Businesses that produce sustainable products and services; eco-tourism
* Other related issues that directly affect sustainability efforts considered by Council”
Most residents are currently unaware that Council has miraculously become expert enough in each of these issues to be able to define to staff exactly what an interdisciplinary citizen group needs to undertake as a task or project. What about the fact that most of these issues do not reside in a vacuum, but are inter-related?
Another involved Sedona resident, Judy Reddington, wrote the following insightful comment recently,
“A task force member has a relationship to the task.
A project team has a commitment to their project.
A commission has a focus and listens to the voice of the people.”
That is so true! I’d like to add just 3 words to the third statement. A commission has a strategic, subject matter focus and listens to the voice of the people. Tasks and projects are one-time tactical processes that can be addressed without considering the mass of interrelationships and long-term consequences. As such, they may tell you how to put on your shoes and tie your laces. But they won’t tell you where to go, or why. Those are matters that require a “standing committee of experts” aka a Commission.
Having just gotten onto this site, I must say I am so impressed with the clarity of each submission on this site. The writing is so well done and presents the ideas in discussion in such a way that allows anyone who reads it an opportunity to consider all of the points made. Clearly, this community is involved and active in the direction that Sedona moves into the future with that affects so many things both in and outside of our immediate area. It takes a lot of time and skill to write comments and do research on issues like this. Congrats to all who contribute to this effort.
I wholeheartedly endorse Ernie Strauch’s points. I also disagree with the idea that open meeting laws restrict progress and effectiveness. They are an important component to an effective public process that moves a community forward while respecting minority points of view.
To the Sedona City Council:
Principle: What is best for staff is not necessarily what is best for the Sedona.
As I now see it, the fundamental issue is this: you, the City Council, instructed staff to come back with a recommendation for a more economical way to do the work performed by the commissions. You gave them totally inadequate guidance or guiding principles within which to frame their recommendation. By this action, you put the city staff in a conflict of interest.
It is certainly cheaper and easier for staff to implement the recommendation they have made than any other recommendation that I can envision.
However, meaningful citizen participation is neither the cheapest nor the easiest solution for staff to implement.
I would have hoped that City staff would have recognized the inherent conflict of interest that you the City Council put staff in and that staff would have asked for more guidance; but alas, according to what I know, have heard and read, staff has not.
So now it is up to you as Council to do your job – of doing what is best for the City to counter balance the conflict that staff has been put in.
I suggest that if citizen participation in City government is as high a priority as what has been touted by council and by Vice Mayor Dinunzio in his article, that when you gave staff this assignment back in late 2012 you would have appointed a select committee of citizens to work with staff to balance the long-term best interest of the City against the best interest of the staff.
Given that this was not done then, it is still not too late to make such an appointment of a select committee now to create the proper balance before everything is set in concrete.