Failed Coup

by

David Olsen, freshman City Council member, made his first motion on a topic not on the agenda of his second Council meeting. The motion challenged the Mayor's appointments. The Mayor allowed the motion, and the Council voted 6-2 to consider the discussion.

Olsen immediately began a newspaper and radio campaign, asking citizens to volunteer for committee appointments... even before the Council had met again to begin to discuss the issue. Olsen's effort was rude and premature. After all, a vote to discuss does not equal a vote to overturn the Mayor's discretion in appointments.

Olsen submitted this press release to the newspaper. The Daily Union ran it on the front page without a reporter's name, as it would print a press release. It was heavily edited. It followed it with a masthead editorial encouraging diversity in appointments. He also sent a memo to the Council with his list of volunteers and his plan for a ceremony to honor the appointees who stepped down.

Here is the cover letter of Ald. Olsen's response to my open records request for these documents. In it, he said he asked the city staff to set up official email addresses for Council members. I wholeheartedly support this notion, having asked for it several times in regards to other open records requests.

Below is a statement I read to the City Council on May 18, 2004. This meeting was the Council's first opportunity to consider Ald. Olsen's motion.

The Mayor presented his appointments largely as-is, with a minor correction for a resignation and a designation of a School Board official. The Council did not discuss the issue much - apart from Ald. Chris Gang, who pointed out that he did not speak to anyone at the Daily Union to make the quotes that appeared in the front-page newspaper story. The motion to reconsider the Mayor's appointments failed, 7-1 with Ald. Olsen as the sole "no" vote.

- John

Dear Common Council,

I'd like to address the issue of the mayor's committee appointments. We must not forget that it is the Mayor's role to select these appointments. It is the Council's role to approve or deny them, not choose them. You approved them at your first meeting.

Yes, this was a close election, but as Mayor, Collin Stevens is not only deserving of everyone's respect, but he does not deserve to be blindsided at his second meeting. It may have been legal to reconsider his appointments, but it was also very rude to do it in this way.

There wasn't even an agenda item about this topic at the last meeting. It was far too generous for the Mayor to allow a motion and a vote that wasn't on the agenda. The agenda is a way to tell the Council and the public what will be discussed at meetings. No one was given the opportunity to prepare their thoughts.

It is even more disrespectful to the normal governmental process for a freshman Council member to take this campaign to the newspapers and the radio before the Council even had a chance to discuss how to approach the issue.

As you can see, I'm very suspicious of Alderman Olsen's campaign to challenge the Mayor's appointments. Apart from smelling like a blatant grab for the Mayor's powers, it is easy to see the flaws in the way Olsen guided the search for alternative candidates.

First, either he acted unilaterally on the motion or it was discussed outside of public meetings. I didn't hear the Council plan this call for volunteers. Second, he didn't publicize a list of open slots. Unless you were watching City government very closely, how would you know what to volunteer for? Many competent members of the public don't even know the names and duties of the City's committees, much less which ones have slots for citizen appointees.

Third, it was also improper for Olsen to ask citizens to contact him directly, and then for him to maintain this list in private. Who appointed Olsen to be the gatekeeper for the Mayor's appointments? Why all the talk about new people coming in, and no talk about who's going out? Who exactly does Olsen want to get rid of, and why? If Olsen has specific ideas to shape the Mayor's choices, let's hear them. If you have specific appointees you'd like to remove, have the courage to state your complaints explicitly. Don't cloak the targets of your vendettas with an open call for volunteers.

Olsen's solicitation reminds me of the way he conducted the elections at the Chamber of Commerce. He'd ask for volunteers to run for Chamber Board seats. But volunteering wasn't enough to get on the ballot. You had to be approved by Olsen and the one or two other members of the nominating committee that he appointed. One year, the nominating committee didn't even meet in person - Olsen said they met by phone. If Olsen didn't want you on the ballot, your name wouldn't appear. In 2000, four of twelve volunteers were kept off the ballot in this way.

It makes no sense to talk about “change” without specifics. Everyone can wish that the City's situation would change for the better, but without specifics, you're only dreaming out loud.

Olsen was not an advocate for change during his four-and-a-half years as executive director at the Commerce and Industry Association and the Jefferson Development Corporation, or at the Jefferson County Economic Development Corporation. Until the City dismissed him in 2001, if there was anyone I could count on to defend the status quo, it was Olsen. He was the one fighting to keep those organizations closed to the public. Indeed, each of these organizations went down fighting because he didn't want them to change.

At the candidate debate, never once did Olsen use the word “change” or suggest a need to eliminate citizen appointees. Instead, he recited a long list of his own appointments and participation on various committees. How quickly does the candidate become the politician! Three months ago, one person sitting on an ever-increasing number of committees was evidence of good character. Today, he says it's flawed to appoint the same old people to the same old spots.

We don't need innovative ways to circumvent the Mayor's powers. We need new and innovative ways to solve the City's budget problems and to find a new City Administrator.

I can imagine a new process by which a Mayor might formalize the discussion of his appointments and open the process to the Council's and the public's influence. First, publicize the list of all appointed positions. Two, call the existing appointees to ask if they'd like to continue. Some might want to step down. Three, encourage a search for new candidates to consider. Four, lead an open discussion about the qualities of good committee members, discuss the benefits of reasonable term limits, and plan a process by which more senior members groom the talents of new appointees. Finally, before the confirmation vote, hold a meeting to explain the reasons behind your appointees. Of course, all of this is at the discretion of the Mayor. It is not required by law.

I ask the Council to find new ways to support the Mayor, not challenge and circumvent him. I want to hear specific new plans and new ways of solving problems, not vague talk about “change” and new ways to hide backroom politicking.

Sincerely,

John J. Foust