Read it here. Left unsaid in the editorial is why the newspaper asked sitting councilors to provide public evaluations of Mr. Rohloff if they now believe that the closed door evaluative procedure is "good policy." Will they now no longer ask Councilors to evaluate the City Manager?
The paper also ran a short piece covering my objections to the closed meeting. That piece can be found here.
The fact that 4 sitting members of the Council have already engaged in significant public evaluation of the City Manager (actually 5 if you count Burk Tower's comments in the Northwestern's Sunday piece on Rohloff) does call into question the need to go into closed session, but I guess from a narrow, legalistic perspective it's okay. The goal setting part of the equation is much more problematic. I do hope a majority of the Council comes to the conclusion tonight that it's probably okay to do a performance evaluation in secret, but that the setting of goals does need to be done in public.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
"I do hope a majority of the Council comes to the conclusion tonight that it's probably okay to do a performance evaluation in secret, but that the setting of goals does need to be done in public."
Quantifiable, measurable goals with rated levels of performance.
I understand the need to review performance in closed session. And the discussion of departmental personnel performance.
I do not understand the need for closed session for creating quantifiable goals for the city manager.
I will watch tonight's meeting and listen to the city attorney's interpretaion of open meetings law.
I think Mr. Rohloff is slowly and steadily exerting control while changing the corporate culture of city operations. It is the changing of the mind-set, the culture that is key. It is also one of the hardest to measure.
We have a core group of staff who are not unaccustomed to being managed. Poor record keeping, self-direction, poor reporting, lack of accountabilty have all been landmarks of past staff operations. There was no managment at city hall.
Now there is. The measures Mr. Rohloff has taken and those he is in the process of implementing demand department heads and staff will keep better records, will report, be accountable, keep him and the council in the information loop.
Is it happening fast enough? Perhaps not. Is he experiencing cultural or staff resistance? I do not know.
There is a lot of knowledge in existing staff and department heads. It would be a waste of talent and experience to not enjoin them in and demand continuous improvement and achievement of success.
I would give Mr. Rohloff the direction and freedom to create serious, measurable goals for his departments. Then weigh in and review on a quaterly basis rather than evey six months.
If the bulk of goal setting involves discussions relating to staff performance, then closed session prevails.
Open or closed depends on what will actually be discussed. Given your confidential package, you have a better idea of what will be discussed than I.
There's nothing in the 11 listed goals that seem even remotely to require confidentiality. In fact just about all of them have already been mentioned in public in one context or another.
Still, I'll wait to release them until I hear Lynn's argument for confidentiality tonight. It is mind-boggling to me that the Northwestern isn't upset about the goals remaining secret. Probably if I had asked to keep them secret they'd be more vigilant. What a shame.
A goal-setting session that is "behind closed doors" allows council members to speak openly, off-record - to brainstorm freely, express opinions about people and programs that they personally feel are not working and why. With NO posturing, no position making, no thinly disguised campaigning, and no fear of public reprisals at the voting booth for a little criticism of Billy Bob or whoever.
Just a private "work session" with hopefully a little honest "sharing" that may actually lead to actual problem-solving. Get the media in there and you get people using the situation for self-aggrandizement etc. and/or they start second-guessing everything they say and self-censor till Hell won't have it. Gawd.
Awareness of _The Camera_ changes EVERYTHING and Councils can have private chats that are not ALWAYS nefarious. Everything is not black or white, one size does not fit all. Esp. since once any goals are any where near finalized they have to be publically aired.
Also - the ONW asking for campaign statements on an admin, more of a little "trap" to get candidates to self-reveal isn't it? but kinda obvious and jeez ya don't have to walk into it blind, and besides, that is simply not the same as "real" personnel evaluation sessions. It seems that shades of grey are being forced into blackness or whiteness for reasons other than "issue clarification" here.
Hmmm.
By the criterion of posturing-avoidance, probably EVERY issue should be discussed behind closed doors. The state and federal governments operate that way, resulting in bad decisions AND posturing after the fact about what they concocted in secret.
I heard nothing at tonight's meeting that justified a closed session to discuss goals. But I did learn that councilors who evaluate the city manager in public potentially open up the city to lawsuits. How nifty is that?
Tonight it became clear that there were at least 5 (and probably 7) different opinions on the Council as to why were were going into closed session. Four members decided to go into the closed session even with that level of doubt in existence.
I'll blog about it later.
What the hell.
I came back to say Just delete that previous remark, cuz ah doan really care, and here it's out already.
Half the time you don't approve my remarks, the ones I regret you post with lightnening speed.
Politicans....
I don't remember not approving your remarks. I remember not responding to some. Oh well, sorry. --TP
'kay. If you grovel for a bit I can probably let it go.
But I WAS confused as to what your point was, and that effected my comment's content. Either I read too fast, or I was still under the influence having read your "Censored Stories" dealie and the other bit where you called Stew a "footsoldier for Gannett". The simmering anti-NW tone throughout kinda led me to beleive you were arguing AGAINST the ONW position again. But later I thought, well maybe you are agreeing with them this time? But grudgingly?
Well clearly I've been away too long to even begin to sort it out, but one thing I HAVE decided - if there ever is an OshClaire Annual Picnic and Muni-Fest, then you and Stew get tied together for the 3-legged races. ALL of 'em.
Then maybe you'll both be too tired and too hungry to be anything other than Footsoldiers for Brats and Potato Salad.
I was glad to hear you rigorously question staff regarding open meeting law and thought they gave thoughtful responses.
As Jess King stated, you reallly don't know what will be discussed until you go into the meeting and closed session would allow for the discussion of potentially litigious topics- ie: departmental staff performance.
I know how strongly you feel about open meetings. We've talked about it in other public discussion forums in the past.
I recognize the value of challenging the need for closed meeting to set goals and respect that you do not think it should be; stating your displeasure on the record.
But you also have a responsibility to represent us in these performance/goal setting discussions. It is because you feel so strongly about certain city issues and ask challenging, thoughtful, "done the homework kind of questions" that your ideas and thoughts need to be in the discussion.
I respectfully urge you to reconsider your hard line stance because we need all of our councilors at the table.
CJ,
I don't think it's about my strong feelings. It's about what the law says. The law demands that if you have doubt about the appropriateness of a closed meeting, you keep the meeting open.
Last night we had at least 4 different opinions stated as to why we were going into closed session. The city attorney refuted at least two of those reasons (i.e. she argued that broad, organizational goals are not appropriate in closed session, and she argued that going into closed session to discuss a process--what Jess had defined as the reason for going into closed session--was not appropriate.).
The mayor, in direct response to my question, said that we most probably would be discussing the confidential goals--most of which I would argue are in the broad, organizational camp.
If that discussion does not suggest "doubt," then I don't know what does.
A good compromise would have been to say, "let's do a performance evaluation in closed session in which we will avoid discussing future goals. But let's set aside another time for discussing how to handle future goal setting."
I respectfully argue that the "hard line" here is being taken by folks who insist on following a process that--at best--is consistent with open meetings requirements only according to a very narrow and technical interpretation. I think our Council needs to be bigger than that.
There's a long tradition in Oshkosh of elected officials going into closed session "because the city attorney told me it was okay." I pledged to myself and to the voters in 2007 that I would never be one of those.
As always CJ is a Goddess of Composure, Tact and Maturity. Theoretically this should annoy me, but no - I stand in awe of her yet again.
Okay I think I DO get it. And I guess I don't see how you can set goals, or even discuss goals without very frank and very specific mention of what IS. That is your base line isn't it?
Setting goals implies a desire to change/improve, and what will be the main focus.. things that are not going so well maybe? Things that specific individuals maybe did in the past that was lacking? I guess I don't see how you can set concrete goals while keeping the discussion totally "broad and organizational". Without referring to specific incidents and people.
Final Thought(snicker)
It's not so much that a council HAS closed sessions as much as it is an issue that so many ABUSE closed sessions. A likely excuse is created to hold one, the lawyer finds a way to "make it so", yet undercurrents and suspicions of "other business" are present, and then finally the public is handed a bill of goods re: what is really going on, but it does not pass the smell test, the citizens can't argue it and they look like blubbering fools yet can't do anything,democracy gets crapped on.
However, if a council holds a closed session to be on the safe side with employee confidentiality rights or whatever, and the people IN the session behave honorably and if some in the session DON'T behave honorably the other ones can be counted on to make a big noise. and then if everything is properly aired/acted upon after the session, then the spirit of the law is being followed and not just the letter of the law as is so often the case. It is up to the elected people to keep the spirit of the law alive and not just shuck it off to the attorneys. That might mean they participate in weird situations and embody the spirit within themselves? (oooh)
Perhaps the real problem is when the law is used as a smoke screen and not a framework for the People to use. That all depends on the people in the seats "in real time", not the lawyers. So anyone can go to an "iffy" closed session, make a fuss if things go awry, and afterwards make a statement that a closed session was not needed at all or even abused in your opinion. It seems to me that the "culture" gets changed that way too.
As to "omg, why the hell is SHE back". Well I'm not TOTALLY sure if I am or not(could be a tropical fever), but there's 2 issues here that have me a tiny bit out of hibernation, yes, 2 things I care enough about might cause me to overcome my Hate o' Politics. Actually, I was ASKED to return by some person who's a glutton for punishment, whoa what's THAT about. But still, nothing to be alarmed over, just like a June bug I guess - I wake up every 17 years.
Sooo, I guess I'll apologize in advance to any and all affected parties. Good Luck peeps.
Post a Comment