Closed Meeting Update

Now this is getting real interesting. Today the Northwestern, a paper that prides itself on being guardians of sunshine in government, ran a story on the "work in progress" that is the Rohloff Administration. The story reported uncritically that "Councilors are scheduled to meet in closed session following the city council meeting Tuesday to discuss Rohloff's performance thus far and set goals and priorities for the city manager for the rest of 2009."

Here's a question for Gannett and their foot soldier Stew R.: if evaluation of the city manager is properly done behind closed doors, then why did the paper ask Ms. King, Mayor Tower, Mr. Esslinger and I to engage in public evaluation of Mr. Rohloff in their campaign questionaire? The paper asked the council and mayoral candidates to answer this question: "Give City Manager Rohloff a preliminary grade (A-F). What are his strengths? Where does he need improvement?" I am a teacher, and in the teaching profession a letter grade is an evaluation. Mayor Tower, who is asking for the closed meeting on Tuesday, answered this way:

"Thus far I have been very impressed with Mark’s performance and would rate him with a B+. His immediate interaction in the community, with Council, and staff show he was the right choice for the position and Oshkosh. Two specific items yet to be completed are the 2010 revised budget/capital improvements document and process and strategic plan."

That sure sounds like a public evaluation to me, in fact it sounds like a ringing endorsement. Is it the Northwestern's opinion, and maybe the Mayor's, that positive evaluative comments are okay in public, but not negative ones? Was I then out of order in my answer to the question?:

"I would give Mr. Rohloff a C+ at this point. I've been impressed with his policy of signing his name on all staff memos before they are released to the Council and general public. I think that shows a willingness to hold staff and himself accountable for everything that comes out of city hall. His weekly newsletter is also clear, in-depth, and informative.

Where I'd like to see improvement are in the areas of economic development, budget, and management of staff. On economic development, I think the city manager should try to use the TIF tool not for business as usual, but to attract family supporting jobs. On budget, Mr. Rohloff should willingly provide the City Council with a draft budget that includes a zero tax increase if for no other reason than to show citizens where he would make major cuts should that need arise. On management of staff, in 2009 I would like to see Mr. Rohloff let the council and general public know how he plans to guarantee the effectiveness of individual departments."

Ms. King and Mr. Esslinger also answered the question. You can find their responses here and here.

I take it that the paper would have been okay with all four of us respoding this way: "Sorry, but you are asking us to evaluate the performance of the City Manager. That is something properly done behind closed doors."

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Frank, Jessica, Paul or I evaluate Mr. Rohloff differently in closed session than we did in response to the Northwestern's question. Would that not be newsworthy? Is the paper really okay with keeping that a secret? How then can they be taken seriously as advocates of open government?

Keep in mind that in my previous post on this topic I agreed that evaluation of the city manager can be done in closed session according to the open meetings law. But why would the Northwestern be okay with a closed session for that purpose when they have already asked for (and received) public evaluations of the city manager from 4 sitting members of the Council? And why on earth would they agree that setting goals is properly done in closed session? If I were to say, "I think one goal should be to come up with a method to evaluate TIF proposals," do I really need to be in closed session?

A few weeks ago, in an envelope marked "confidential," councilors were given a draft statement of 11 "2009 goals for the city manager." Does the Northwestern really believe that it's proper for those goals to remain under wraps until the Council is ready to release them? They must, because I am aware of no attempt to get them. Does the paper think I would be violating the open records law if I released them?

Mayor Tower apparently believes that the public should be allowed to comment on the goals only after the Council has had at them in secret. Here's what he said in his most recent letter to the Council: "Also, after the meeting, we have a Closed Session scheduled for review of Mark's performance to date, and discussion of goals moving forward. Please review the draft you received of possible goals and come with additions or changes. Pending Council input, I would expect we would place a resolution on the March 10th Agenda for formal adoption of the goals, thus allowing public comment and any final Council comment."

Meanwhile, here is how the agenda announces the closed session: "Discuss the Performance Evaluation Regarding the City Manager, an Employee over which the Common Council has Jurisdiction and Exercises Responsibility Pursuant to Section 19.85(1)(c) of the Wisconsin State Statutes." I don't see anything in there regarding a discussion of goals. It's still not clear why a discussion of goals needs to be done in closed session, especially since the Mayor is now saying that public comment on them will be allowed on March 10th.

While I do believe the performance evaluation of the City Manager can be done in closed session, there too it's not clear why we necessarily have to close the meeting since the Northwestern has already succeeded in getting 4 of us to engage in public evaluation of Mr. Rohloff. If any of the 4 make substantial revisions to their evaluation--or contradict what they told the paper--I repeat that that is certainly newsworthy.

Comments?