The News-Leader recently ran an opinion piece where they shared that Springfield Mayor Pro-Tem Gary Deaver asked the paper not to publish the salary ranges being considered by the City Manager search committee out of fears that it would give “a candidate the upper hand in negotiations.”
It’s going to do just that. The News-Leader’s editorial staff knows that. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that.
Here’s the key to it: that’s just the price you have to pay for open and transparent government.
I can completely understand why Mayor Pro Tem Deaver is in favor of keeping the salary levels from the public view before the negotiations with a potential Manager. Obviously whoever is coming in is not stupid and is going to be keeping a close eye on Springfield media and news. They’ll know exactly what the ranges are and they’re not going to come in and ask for the minimum salary. Springfield is going to pay more for their next city manager than they would have done if this process was completed in a more confidential manner like that of a private firm. In business sense, it makes complete sense.
Unfortunately, government cannot always operate in a “business sense.” As much as the taxpayers want to have our government operate as lean as possible and at the lowest cost possible (i.e. lowest tax rates possible) it cannot go through hiring processes of a position as powerful as the City Manager without throwing open the doors and letting citizens see the process every step of the way.
That includes letting the citizens know ahead of time that the City Council is saying “we’re considering a salary range from $160,000 at the low end to over $200,000 at the high end when we go into negotations with a final candidate.” It includes letting the citizens give their feedback both in written form and spoken form to their Council members and Mayor. It includes giving the citizens a chance to jump into the process through citizen surveys and feedback to the members of the committee.
It’s likely the same people who are upset that Mayor Pro Tem Deaver asked the News-Leader not to publish that information will be the same ones throwing a fit when the new City Manager’s salary comes in near the high end. You’ll likely see letters to the editor or on local blogs screaming about how outrageous it is that the new manager didn’t take the lowest salary on the scale. That’s when we need to step back and realize again that this is part of the price of open and transparent government. You can’t have it both ways.
And sometimes it’s very easy for people to forget the people on the committee ARE citizens and ARE volunteering for their community. So to say “the citizens” don’t have a say or a voice is not accurate; to say it’s “minimal” (as the News-Leader has said) could be accurate. Those folks don’t want to pay any more in taxes than you or I do for a higher salary for a new City Manager.
The link to the News-Leader’s opinion piece in that last paragraph about public input possibly being minimal leads into another issue…the price of openness also means we might not get the best candidates for our job.
Critics of the city don’t want you to know that. They want that fact kept as far away from you as they want you to believe Mayor Pro Tem Deaver wanted to keep the salary figures from you. They want you to try and believe that even if every potential finalist knows they’re going to be brought out in public in front of the Springfield citizens…and their current employers who might not know they’re looking for a new job…that the best candidates are automatically going to say “sign me up!” It’s very possible we could end up missing out on the top candidates or many of the top candidates identified by the city’s hired search firm because they don’t want to risk their current employer knowing they’re looking elsewhere in an economy and job environment where it’s not easy to find another job if you lose your current job.
And only a fool would tell you that if it came out in public you’re looking for another job it could not endanger your current job.
So our desire for complete transparency in this case endangers our ability to get the best possible final candidates for our position. We have to accept that premise and move forward even though you’ll have people insistent that we don’t have to make that sacrifice. The reason we have to accept that premise is otherwise you can’t have a completely transparent process.
The News-Leader’s editorial board wrote (and I’m guessing it’s Iseman who penned it) “Most important, the city must pledge to allot more time for citizens to meet candidates. As it stands, we’ve heard only vague talk of having candidates appear in public, but no details. The council should commit to at least three public forums for citizens — and the media — to assess finalists, no matter how many shake out of this process.”
That’s absolutely right. At a time where we have had such a serious budget issue and a crisis with the police and fire pension we cannot rush this process through without serious citizen input. The meetings need to be publicized and as accessible as possible (meaning no meeting at 3pm on a Thursday when most everyone is at work.) I would say there needs to be at least four forums for the public…one in each Zone of the city. The Councilmember for that Zone should host it as a public meeting like Councilwoman Rushefsky and Councilman Wylie have done for their Zones. This should be a bare minimum. I also think it would be a benefit to the city for a media forum…much like a televised Presidential debate. Maybe have KSPR host it some evening in place of a re-run of According to Jim. Have some local press pepper them with questions about things that affect our city and let the public see their responses.
And the public MUST be involved in the process. The attendance at the meetings needs to be more than a group of local political activists or people who have beefs with the city. This is the time where average Joe Citizen who has never gone to a Council meeting or public forum needs to sacrifice some of their time for the good of the city as a whole and help pack out the meeting places. This is the time where the loudest voices CAN’T only be the ones that are speaking.
If the city plans these meetings and the same group of people shows up to each one then the citizens have no one to blame but themselves if a few years into the reign of a new City Manager they do things the majority of citizens don’t want to have happen. If we demand openness then we have to contribute our part and take advantage of those open doors and clear windows.
The News-Leader’s sidebar on the “Pay Grade” story says “Openness in all things is good government.” I completely agree. However, we need to always keep in mind that openness can cost a little more…and that cost to us might be more money paid to the next manager who might not have been the best person for the job.
