(Dec. 4, 2007) -- Mayor Bob Foster has agendized a Dec. 4 item (on which he has the co-signature of Councilmember Val Lerch) that proposes to require that Councilmembers and staff provide "12 days notice" of upcoming agenda items (with a by-pass procedure permitting the current three days' notice on items with the voted consent of five Councilmembers).
The Mayor's proposal is a very big deal...because it affects making city laws, dispensing money, prioritizing services, conveying benefits and inflicting impacts by voted actions of the City Council.
The Mayor states his reasons for his proposal in an agendizing memo. To view it in full, click here.
But is it really "12 days notice?" Under the Mayor's proposal, what's required 12 days ahead of time is merely a one paragraph agenda heading [in which euphemisms and obfuscatory verbiage isn't unheard of] while the actual explanatory material describing what's actually planned (commonly called "back-up material") can remain concealed until three days before the item...basically as things are now.
So what's really going on here? Is this a way for the Mayor and opponents to get a "heads up" so they can array their resources against Councilmembers who plan Council actions they don't like?
At about midday Dec. 3, we raised these questions with his Chief of Staff, Becki Ames, who strongly disputed our reasoning and asked if we'd like to discuss the item with Mayor Foster. We said yes, and the Mayor spoke with us on Monday night.
We made notes at breakneck speed and typed the material here. The result below isn't absolutely verbatim, but it's very close and does accurately convey the salient points that were communicated:
LBReport.com: The way it's proposed by your office, backup material that would explain what the agenda item really is doesn't have to be provided until the time items are agendized at present...
Mayor Foster: Well I'd like to have it required to give more time for that too, but I'm trying to be realistic...I wouldn't characterize the backup material as what "explains" everything. Most of the agenda items have an explanation that at least tells you what's going on...
LBReport.com: The backup material explains what's really taking place...
Mayor Foster: So that means you'd actually be in favor of just keeping it where it is and making no changes?
LBReport.com: But I don't understand how this increases notice. To me it's non-notice.
Mayor Foster: At least it puts people on notice that an issue that they are concerned about is going to be discussed in twelve days from now, not two days from now, not three days from now, but twelve days. And they can also make inquiries about what it is and if there's any other additional material available they can get it. I would love to have backup material ahead twelve days but I don't think that's realistic...
LBReport.com ...The only sources of agenda items that might surprise you or displease you might come from some Councilmembers [not city management, whose new City Manager Mayor Foster helped select]. Is the extra week actually a way for you to generate opposition to items you oppose or otherwise nibble them to death [kill the items]?
Mayor Foster: That is an amazing view...You know, I find that, to be candid, offensive, because proponents can do the same thing...Is this some sort of sinister plot, that someone's going to put something on the agenda and all of a sudden all the opposition is going to build. If there's that much opposition then you ought to give it more time, just like if there's that much support for it you'll have more people coming out to be in favor of it.
I don't get this. You want to keep the existing system? Argue for it. I don't understand how three days notice is adequate for people on any kind of major item...I'm trying to do what I think is right here. I've got no dog in this hunt...
LBReport.com: You don't see it as kind of an unequal position? You have all the clout and the resources at City Hall...
Mayor Foster: What resources do I have? I have five staff members...Additional clout to do what? to put something on the agenda so opposition builds to it?
LBReport.com: What about the argument that [your proposed new system] lets you pick the brains of your potential opponents on items [letting you see what they have in mind]?.
Mayor Foster: But it will also let them gather support for their item. I don't get this. They're also able to gather support. They'll have more time. I'm sure opposition can certainly build, but so can support.
LBReport.com: So you see this as equal, that it cuts both ways?
Mayor Foster: To me it does...
I find it really interesting that people that call for more transparency and more participation are going to argue for less public notice than more public notice. I find that to be sort of hilarious...
The only reason [my item] is on the agenda is because I think it's incumbent on providing a more professional and thorough process...I just think if we can provide a little more notice it provides for better public participation and a more informed public. It's not everything we'd like to see because a lot of the backup material isn't there. My preference would be to have the backup material twelve days in advance but I think that's not realistic...
Mayor Foster added that if the Council approves the recommendation, he envisions the item returning on December 11 at which time the Council would then formally ask the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance with whatever the Council's direction is.
