This is an article by Ann McFarlane, who runs Jurassic Parliament, a training company used by *The City of Des Moines and most cities in WA. It corrects just one of dozens of misconceptions I hear over and over from both the public, candidates and electeds about how Council Meetings are supposed to work.
Time and again I’ve heard the following throughout Des Moines:
- Many residents believe that harmony is a sign of a well-functioning City Council. And they cannot stand what looks like ‘arguing’.
- Others will comment that many issues looks ‘pre-arranged’. They see no disagreement and it appears as though no one ever changes their mind.
- I’ve spoken with many people over the past week (including one applicant for the Council vacancy) that the primary purpose of the Mayor is to be a ‘consensus builder’.
So… if I hear people clearly (and I don’t want to exaggerate) this sounds kinda like the Supreme Court of the United States of America. 😀 It sounds like you believe our City Council works like this:
- CMs (somehow?) discuss things ahead of time, aided by a ‘first among equals’ Mayor. Their job it is to somehow help the Council reach agreement or guide the process in some way (perhaps in concert with the City Manager?)
- We then have a meeting which is the ‘big reveal’. The discussion is basically our rhetorical comments as to why we were for or against.
I totally know why people get that impression. But that scenario is completely illegal. And it is illegal because it was the express will of the State to insure that Council decisions be made in public. So much so that your legislature created this thing called the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA.)
However: most people assume that what they see is how things are supposed to work. They have a tough time believing that any process they’ve observed year after year might not be correct. I get it.
But when neither the public or even the candidates are aware or are willing to follow the spirit of the law? That has to be addressed.
How it’s supposed to work…
State law intends that decision making occur on the dais. And as this article states clearly, the Discussion Period is supposed to be a true debate; a professional argument leading to the group decision. We are not supposed to discuss things in advance and the Mayor is not supposed to have any role in decision making beyond their one vote.
Councilmembers are supposed to have the freedom to discuss, compromise and even change their minds entirely when presented with convincing arguments and evidence from their colleagues. That is the *purpose of the Discussion Period and †currently it is impossible.
But in a properly functioning City Council a good CM shows up with well-researched arguments, presents and defends them skillfully, with the reasonable expectation of obtaining agreement and maybe even changing hearts and minds entirely. On the dais. That’s really how it’s supposed to work. Really, truly. 🙂
(Hilarity ensues.)
How it works in ‘the real world’…
Somewhere along the way, we got so far away from how things are supposed to work that many of you, including people who run for office, either do not understand the correct process or choose to avoid it. Instead, we promote candidates based on their ability to navigate in ‘the real world’, a place where harmony is considered not just ‘nice’ but ‡essential.
Many of you told me you voted for ‘change’, but are frustrated with my constant banging on about ‘process’. You understand that ‘in theory’ process matters. But over and over again I hear now,
“Hey JC, that’s just not how it works in the real world.”
No. That’s just how it has worked here. And it’s at the root of decades of bad policy. The flavours change, but they’ve all been bad. And that is why I will not move off this. You cannot make good decisions without vigorous debates. They expose the flaws, polish good ideas into gems. And if nothing else? They make it clear to the public who should be rewarded and who should be punished at the next election. In Barbie’s Dreamhouse of Good Government this is not a new closet. It’s the foundation of the entire house.
We cannot make the fundamental improvements you told me you want, to the airport, the marina, downtown, public safety, after school programs, race, everything, until we can at least conduct basic processes like Discussion Period as intended and with sincerity.
Swear to God.
Here’s my current problem…
Unfortunately, I’ve asked the candidates in the last election and the applicants in this process for their support. And so far?
Let’s just say the response has not been everything I had hoped for. 😀
The obvious reason is because we’ve been doing it this way for decades, it’s all people know and frankly, it’s easier to insist we can have it both ways: address the issues you want without fundamental (painful) process reforms.
I’m very sorry, but that is also untrue. And because there are so many things to be unlearned (like Discussion Period) it won’t be easy. And it won’t happen unless you insist that your fave applicants/candidates are on board.
And if you will not believe me, I wish you (and all candidates) would read the articles I post almost every week from people like Ann McFarlane. Judge for yourself.
*Our City offers all kinds of educational courses to electeds free of charge, but her blog is open to the public. But anyone interested in running for office should take a look because parliamentary stuff matters.
†This is why the rule changes implemented in 2019 (eg. Rule 19a–speak twice, 20F12b–four minutes) are so egregious. They made any real debate or information sharing impossible. They made it clear that ‘keeping the meeting moving and civil is all the matters.
‡Vic Pennington mentioned in his application speech a refrain I heard year after year: We need harmony on the City Council in order to attract investors and developers. Not true.
Comments
Comments are closed.