Last week when I posted my interview with Councilwoman Cindy Rushefsky, she stated that “when we first came on Council…that is Doug Burlison, myself and Dan Chiles…a memorandum was sent to all staff saying they could not talk to us without going through the City Manager. They could not write us any responses without it being cleared by the City Manager’s office. I think that is not a good plan because there is no way for Council members who have ultimate responsibility to test the information they’re getting from the City Manager’s office.”
I contacted the city and obtained a copy of the memo which you can download by clicking here. It says in part that “Any information or material being sent to the Mayor and members of City Council MUST be approved by the City Manager or Assistant City Manager BEFORE it is sent to Councilmembers.”
No comments from me on this one, Jason.
This being a family-type blog and all, I’m fairly sure you wouldn’t approve the kind of language which popped into my head as I read the Assistant City Manager’s memo.
Couple of questions and then a comment.
1. Did you do a freedom of information request to get this memo and did it cost you anything to get this memo (copying fees, staff time to dig it out, etc, all the things that the SN-L mentioned in their editorial and the City Clerk mentioned in her opinion piece in the paper.
2. If you were just given the memo without a FOI request, then why? Why do some have to fill out an FOI and pay for the information and others don’t?
Springfield is the third largest city in Missouri. And we are still governed by a volunteer mayor, volunteer council and a paid city manager. Maybe it is time the city explored the possibility of a paid mayor and council ….. and get rid of the city manager form of government. Council doesn’t run the city, staff does.
Who did you contact at the city to get this memo? Do they still have a job?
I think the policy sounds worse that it is.
The good faith explanation is that routing all information through the city manager greatly reduces the risk a council member would be talking directly to a city department manager and then that member or the member’s family/associates appears to benefit from the actions of that department. A council member takes a great interest in the public works department and gets new sidewalk in front of their house or commercial property, or after a talk with the chief of police, someone’s charges go away.
And whether that goes on, it could create the appearance of improper influence if such one-on-one dialogue is occurring.
I think the current policy is preferred over one where council members go by and visit with whomever to get information. I’m not saying they should be kept in the dark as to what department heads want and think, but that information needs to come through official, public channels to keep our government above board.
And I haven’t heard allegations from employees that the city managers have refused to pass on information or exerted pressure on subordinates….
Jim…I just contacted public information and asked for it. I didn’t have to file a request or pay for anything. Everyone I talked to still has a job as far as I know.
I think, IIRC, that the Clerk and the public info office don’t charge if it’s information they get themselves because it’s part of their function.