By Terry E. Cohen, Council President
Before posting again in direct response to the Daily Times December 2 edition, I wanted to note a few things from last Monday night's legislative meeting (Dec. 10). While this post started out as just an update, it certainly provided more evidence to debunk the Daily Times' published claims -- its own and that of others -- that select members of Council are uncooperative with the Mayor.
Number of Council Meetings
First, during opening announcements, I thanked your current Council for their dedication and diligence, having held 181 meetings since the post-election Reorganization Meeting in April 2011. The correct number of Council meetings during this period is actually 173, which lowers the monthly average from over 9 per month based on the first 15 months to 8.2 per month calculated through the end of 2012. I mention that average because Council typically schedules 4 sessions a month - 2 work sessions and 2 legislative sessions for regular business, which is 25% more meetings than was previously the norm for regularly scheduled meetings and 50% more than just a few years ago.
As I noted in my brief comments, your Council has handled a number of long-term issues, such as the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) litigation, Enterprise Zone designation and the councilmanic election redistricting/reapportionment - the first was a once in a lifetime endeavor, and the next two are done once every 10 years. While the Council had differences with the Mayor and among members on the elections issue (which was ultimately decided on the basis of data, not politics, while achieving the goal of "proportional representation"), the Mayor and the Council had a unified front on the WWTP and the Enterprise Zone.
This contributes to the body of evidence debunking the Daily Times' promoted myth that a majority of the Council set out to give the Mayor an "uphill legislative battle." (More on that subject in another post later.)
Council Commended by Auditor
Pam Baker, the chief contact person with the City's auditing firm of Barbacane, Thornnton and Company, LLP, presented the final audit to the Council, the Mayor and the public at the meeting. Monday, Dec. 3, Ms. Baker reviewed the draft of the audit with the Council at its work session, enabling members to get clarifications of a few problems identified, the way numbers were represented, etc. This is the earliest the City has seen its audit numbers in years -- something Council Vice President Debbie Campbell has pushed for ever since she was first elected in 2005 -- and the value to the City of a timely audit was emphasized by Ms. Baker.
Ms. Baker also commended the Council for taking an hour-and-a-half of its time to review the audit with her, saying few of her clients take that level of time and interest. She noted the value of the audit to the budgeting process we undertake each year.
Garbage Ordinance Removed from Agenda at Request of Mayor and Administration
The Council amended its legislative agenda at the Monday night meeting to remove the Garbage Ordinance in accommodation of the request from the Mayor and Administration so they can resolve an administrative issue. This is not an unusual circumstance. The public record clearly shows that agendas have been changed, often at the last minute, and special legislative meetings have been scheduled by Council -- numerous times -- to accommodate the Mayor and the Administration.
Further, the Garbage Ordinance was moved forward at the Council's March 5, 2012, work session, with the Council giving its suggestions and go-ahead for Public Works and the City Attorney's office to work out the necessary language.
This again demonstrates that constant accusations published and supported by the Daily Times that the Council - or its leadership, or select members -- is chronically holding up the work of the City as a form of opposition to the Mayor are untrue.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
More Posts to Come...
By Terry E. Cohen, Council President
Other posts responding to statements of concern from the Daily Times on Dec. 2 will be forthcoming, but again I ask readers' patience since I have to do this as time permits, given regular work, council work and, of course, attention to family. Thanks for understanding.
If you haven't read the three posts on the subject already, you will see them below. Keep checking back when you can. Your interest is appreciated.
Other posts responding to statements of concern from the Daily Times on Dec. 2 will be forthcoming, but again I ask readers' patience since I have to do this as time permits, given regular work, council work and, of course, attention to family. Thanks for understanding.
If you haven't read the three posts on the subject already, you will see them below. Keep checking back when you can. Your interest is appreciated.
Monday, December 10, 2012
When Numbers Are Used to Distort the Truth
By Terry E. Cohen, Council President
Early in its article last Sunday (December 2), the Daily Times repeated an assertion by the Mayor that “21 major policy proposals” were being blocked by a majority of the Council. The newspaper offers its readers little to no information about whether that assertion is correct or what that “21” means. The article references a few of the issues, but again with little to no meaningful discussion about what the differences of opinions are or whether all of the proposals should move forward. (Some of the issues referenced by the paper will be addressed later on this site.)
A meaningful discussion for the public would have entailed putting the “21” in context, asking questions such as:
• What is the full list of “21”?
• Does it include issues like the aggressive dog ordinance (as mentioned in the article), which were not delayed by Council, but instead were delayed six times at the request of the City Administrator?
• Of the hundreds of items Administration has advanced to Council (most of which Council has advanced for a vote), could any have been sent to a back burner so Council and City Attorney time could have been devoted to issues on the list of “21”? For example, the Mayor and Administration advanced an ordinance to regulate portable storage devices (e.g., brand names “Cubes” and “PODS”). Upon discussion, the Council and the City Attorney learned this had only had 3 or 4 complaints in recent years.
• Should the numerous issues on which the Council supported the Mayor (e.g., Wicomico River environmental improvements, Tenants’ Rights Addendum) or got to “yes” (e.g., Onley-Bateman intersection, River’s Edge project, firefighters SAFER grant) have taken a back seat to the issues on this list of “21”?
• Are some of the issues really “stalled” or “blocked,” or are they actually multi-step processes?
• Are some of the “21” issues those with highly complex implications that require extensive legal research to avoid costly court battles for the City?
• Is the time frame expected for turnaround by Council realistic given the workload of competing priorities? For example, issues like the state-mandated Ethics Ordinance or the Wastewater Treatment Plant could not be set aside.
These questions come back to a discussion of priorities, or as one legislative advisory service said, “Organizations cannot do everything at once.” In November, I extended an invitation to the Mayor to join the Council in December for a discussion of priorities for the remainder of the fiscal year (i.e., through June 30), but he declined.
Taking stock mid-year of where we are and where we want to be is a good way to ensure our time, resources and taxpayer money are devoted to the highest priorities. Let’s not waste City Attorney time and money, staff resources or Council deliberation time again on a portable storage ordinance when we have matters of greater importance to consider.
By simply tossing the “21” out there, the Daily Times gave the impression that all “21” are worthy of moving forward, which may not be the case. Does the list contain initiatives the Mayor is advancing that could undermine years of building a “growth pays for growth” discipline into our policies, inviting a return to a form of developer reimbursements that have not served the taxpayers well?
As you can see, context is vital when tossing numbers around. The Daily Times can claim journalistic innocence by saying it was merely quoting the Mayor. However, it built a so-called “news” story around such claims. This was not a time-sensitive topic. The newspaper could have delivered a well-balanced piece by waiting the few days for when I offered to meet and discuss it.
That might have resulted in real questions and answers the public would have found meaningful, which the Daily Times does not appear to find as juicy a story to tell. That’s truly unfortunate because the real story is newsworthy and, when the public is fully informed, people participate at a level that is really beneficial to producing good government.
Early in its article last Sunday (December 2), the Daily Times repeated an assertion by the Mayor that “21 major policy proposals” were being blocked by a majority of the Council. The newspaper offers its readers little to no information about whether that assertion is correct or what that “21” means. The article references a few of the issues, but again with little to no meaningful discussion about what the differences of opinions are or whether all of the proposals should move forward. (Some of the issues referenced by the paper will be addressed later on this site.)
A meaningful discussion for the public would have entailed putting the “21” in context, asking questions such as:
• What is the full list of “21”?
• Does it include issues like the aggressive dog ordinance (as mentioned in the article), which were not delayed by Council, but instead were delayed six times at the request of the City Administrator?
• Of the hundreds of items Administration has advanced to Council (most of which Council has advanced for a vote), could any have been sent to a back burner so Council and City Attorney time could have been devoted to issues on the list of “21”? For example, the Mayor and Administration advanced an ordinance to regulate portable storage devices (e.g., brand names “Cubes” and “PODS”). Upon discussion, the Council and the City Attorney learned this had only had 3 or 4 complaints in recent years.
• Should the numerous issues on which the Council supported the Mayor (e.g., Wicomico River environmental improvements, Tenants’ Rights Addendum) or got to “yes” (e.g., Onley-Bateman intersection, River’s Edge project, firefighters SAFER grant) have taken a back seat to the issues on this list of “21”?
• Are some of the issues really “stalled” or “blocked,” or are they actually multi-step processes?
• Are some of the “21” issues those with highly complex implications that require extensive legal research to avoid costly court battles for the City?
• Is the time frame expected for turnaround by Council realistic given the workload of competing priorities? For example, issues like the state-mandated Ethics Ordinance or the Wastewater Treatment Plant could not be set aside.
These questions come back to a discussion of priorities, or as one legislative advisory service said, “Organizations cannot do everything at once.” In November, I extended an invitation to the Mayor to join the Council in December for a discussion of priorities for the remainder of the fiscal year (i.e., through June 30), but he declined.
Taking stock mid-year of where we are and where we want to be is a good way to ensure our time, resources and taxpayer money are devoted to the highest priorities. Let’s not waste City Attorney time and money, staff resources or Council deliberation time again on a portable storage ordinance when we have matters of greater importance to consider.
By simply tossing the “21” out there, the Daily Times gave the impression that all “21” are worthy of moving forward, which may not be the case. Does the list contain initiatives the Mayor is advancing that could undermine years of building a “growth pays for growth” discipline into our policies, inviting a return to a form of developer reimbursements that have not served the taxpayers well?
As you can see, context is vital when tossing numbers around. The Daily Times can claim journalistic innocence by saying it was merely quoting the Mayor. However, it built a so-called “news” story around such claims. This was not a time-sensitive topic. The newspaper could have delivered a well-balanced piece by waiting the few days for when I offered to meet and discuss it.
That might have resulted in real questions and answers the public would have found meaningful, which the Daily Times does not appear to find as juicy a story to tell. That’s truly unfortunate because the real story is newsworthy and, when the public is fully informed, people participate at a level that is really beneficial to producing good government.
Dec. 9 Op-ed as Sent to Daily Times
By Terry E. Cohen, Council President
At the request of some readers, the opinion/editorial (op-ed) I sent to the Daily Times appears below.
Progress doesn’t come from ultimatums
Last Sunday, the Daily Times devoted an extensive amount of space, words and pictures on its front page, news and opinion pages about disputes in Salisbury city government. There were, unfortunately, numerous inaccuracies and misleading statements.
For example, the aggressive dog ordinance isn’t delayed because of council. I scheduled it six times for discussion since July as requested by the administration. Each time the city administrator asked that it be postponed. My space to respond is very limited on a monthly basis by the newspaper, so I will have to refer readers to www.OnYourSideSBY.blogspot.com for a fuller correction of the record.
Today, I’d like to talk about one step for reducing conflict.
The Annapolis chief financial officer who spoke at a Maryland Municipal League (MML) conference a couple of years ago discussed 5-year budgeting. His audience was a mix of municipal legislators, mayors and administrative staff members, but his wise advice was directed to the mayors and staff:
“Get early buy-in from your councils.”
Good advice. It is the council that makes policy, so it’s good business to get these decision-makers on board early to move a goal forward, rather than surprising them with an ultimatum at the end of the process. This is true whether it’s a mayor-council form of government or a city manager-council form of government.
I have been asking the administration for an early buy-in process since I was first elected in 2007. Voters expressed their dissatisfaction with the council functioning as a rubber stamp.
Grants are a perfect opportunity to apply the early buy-in principle – not the small, “reimbursement” grants (such as police overtime), but those that involve city assets (such as real estate) or a large commitment of resources in the future, whether required as a “match” or not.
For the grant that added four new police officers to our force, the federal government required the legislative body’s approval for applying. This ensured that the budget makers were aware of, understood and prepared to meet the grant’s financial and resource obligations.
The result? Salisbury applied as a unified government, prepared for future obligations. The city got four new officers – and everyone was spared the current dramas.
The recent grant for additional firefighters did not have an early buy-in process, resulting in unnecessary drama. Even when grant-making agencies don’t require proof of application submission approval from the legislative body, they often expect that the council is informed and concerns are already addressed. After all, the city government – which by charter means the mayor and the council – is making application, not just the mayor’s office.
The council did not vote down the grant for additional firefighters as the Daily Times erroneously reported. The grant was not moved forward for a vote due to the lack of information in a short window for consideration.
The technical difference is important. If the council had voted to accept the grant right away, the taxpayers could have been on the hook each year for the $400,000 benefits mistake in the grant application that Council Vice President Debbie Campbell’s questions uncovered. Some want to label that “micro-managing,” but there is nothing “micro” about $400,000.
Early “buy-in” also promotes a good reputation and relationship with higher government agencies because the city government is applying with a unified voice. No council should be politically cornered to approve a grant for which they have insufficient information or sincerely feel the terms of a grant aren’t in the best interest of our city. Don’t place these valuable relationships or the city’s reputation at risk in the first place and they won’t be.
Progress does not come from ultimatums. Ultimatums create political drama and divisiveness, which drains time, money, resources and emotions. An early buy-in process is common to success in business and government, identifying and solving problems in a timely and effective manner.
Terry Cohen is president of the Salisbury City Council.
At the request of some readers, the opinion/editorial (op-ed) I sent to the Daily Times appears below.
Progress doesn’t come from ultimatums
Last Sunday, the Daily Times devoted an extensive amount of space, words and pictures on its front page, news and opinion pages about disputes in Salisbury city government. There were, unfortunately, numerous inaccuracies and misleading statements.
For example, the aggressive dog ordinance isn’t delayed because of council. I scheduled it six times for discussion since July as requested by the administration. Each time the city administrator asked that it be postponed. My space to respond is very limited on a monthly basis by the newspaper, so I will have to refer readers to www.OnYourSideSBY.blogspot.com for a fuller correction of the record.
Today, I’d like to talk about one step for reducing conflict.
The Annapolis chief financial officer who spoke at a Maryland Municipal League (MML) conference a couple of years ago discussed 5-year budgeting. His audience was a mix of municipal legislators, mayors and administrative staff members, but his wise advice was directed to the mayors and staff:
“Get early buy-in from your councils.”
Good advice. It is the council that makes policy, so it’s good business to get these decision-makers on board early to move a goal forward, rather than surprising them with an ultimatum at the end of the process. This is true whether it’s a mayor-council form of government or a city manager-council form of government.
I have been asking the administration for an early buy-in process since I was first elected in 2007. Voters expressed their dissatisfaction with the council functioning as a rubber stamp.
Grants are a perfect opportunity to apply the early buy-in principle – not the small, “reimbursement” grants (such as police overtime), but those that involve city assets (such as real estate) or a large commitment of resources in the future, whether required as a “match” or not.
For the grant that added four new police officers to our force, the federal government required the legislative body’s approval for applying. This ensured that the budget makers were aware of, understood and prepared to meet the grant’s financial and resource obligations.
The result? Salisbury applied as a unified government, prepared for future obligations. The city got four new officers – and everyone was spared the current dramas.
The recent grant for additional firefighters did not have an early buy-in process, resulting in unnecessary drama. Even when grant-making agencies don’t require proof of application submission approval from the legislative body, they often expect that the council is informed and concerns are already addressed. After all, the city government – which by charter means the mayor and the council – is making application, not just the mayor’s office.
The council did not vote down the grant for additional firefighters as the Daily Times erroneously reported. The grant was not moved forward for a vote due to the lack of information in a short window for consideration.
The technical difference is important. If the council had voted to accept the grant right away, the taxpayers could have been on the hook each year for the $400,000 benefits mistake in the grant application that Council Vice President Debbie Campbell’s questions uncovered. Some want to label that “micro-managing,” but there is nothing “micro” about $400,000.
Early “buy-in” also promotes a good reputation and relationship with higher government agencies because the city government is applying with a unified voice. No council should be politically cornered to approve a grant for which they have insufficient information or sincerely feel the terms of a grant aren’t in the best interest of our city. Don’t place these valuable relationships or the city’s reputation at risk in the first place and they won’t be.
Progress does not come from ultimatums. Ultimatums create political drama and divisiveness, which drains time, money, resources and emotions. An early buy-in process is common to success in business and government, identifying and solving problems in a timely and effective manner.
Terry Cohen is president of the Salisbury City Council.
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Thank You...And More to Come
By Terry E. Cohen, Council President
Thank you for stopping by to read today. More will follow tomorrow and as time permits, so please check back for more information.
Thank you for stopping by to read today. More will follow tomorrow and as time permits, so please check back for more information.
Media Misinformation Harms the Public
The first few paragraphs of last week’s front page Daily Times article advances a position in a way that is better suited to an opinion page than a news story. The newspaper is already on record from its op-ed pages in July as agreeing with the Mayor’s frequent misleading assertions about the City Council. Numerous other op-eds and news articles indicate the newspaper’s bias.
The first issue that should be questioned is whether or not the City should be run based on the Mayor’s priorities alone. Our government is set up by Charter with the Council as the policymakers, just as it is in municipalities of various forms of government across the nation. The Mayor can recommend policy, but it is the Council – five people also elected by the voters – who actually make it.
Once that policy is made, it is the Mayor’s responsibility to direct staff to see that it is faithfully executed. The Daily Times has – for years – contributed to and supported the myth that the City Council’s role is to sit quietly as a rubber stamp for Mayor-advanced initiatives. It even went so far as to declare passage of a budget as “arguably the only" responsibility of the Council.
This type of misinformation to the public about how government works is not healthy for our City. As an illustration of how the government should work and how your current Council is making an effort to work with the Mayor, one need only look at the Onley-Bateman intersection debate.
For whatever reason, the previous Council leadership found it easier to stop at “no” on this issue, while the current Council worked hard to get to “yes.” Initially, the current Council was repeatedly berated by the Daily Times. However, through hard work, your Council not only got to “yes” on the intersection, its position resulted in improved public safety, a substantial savings to the taxpayer, a design incorporating bike lanes and a quality partnership between the City and Salisbury University.
During the process, the newspaper generated a lot of unproductive, adversarial discussion. This detracted from the public’s understanding of what officials needed to consider and generated a lot of unnecessary public upset.
In a recent editorial, the Daily Times said that media focus on scandals like General Petraeus and Paula Broadwell was due to the media simply giving the public what it wants. People tell me that they don’t want the political pot-stirring the Daily Times dishes out. I hope the public will join me in encouraging the Daily Times to be a positive asset for our community by focusing on the real news of an issue instead of feelings and politics.
The first issue that should be questioned is whether or not the City should be run based on the Mayor’s priorities alone. Our government is set up by Charter with the Council as the policymakers, just as it is in municipalities of various forms of government across the nation. The Mayor can recommend policy, but it is the Council – five people also elected by the voters – who actually make it.
Once that policy is made, it is the Mayor’s responsibility to direct staff to see that it is faithfully executed. The Daily Times has – for years – contributed to and supported the myth that the City Council’s role is to sit quietly as a rubber stamp for Mayor-advanced initiatives. It even went so far as to declare passage of a budget as “arguably the only" responsibility of the Council.
This type of misinformation to the public about how government works is not healthy for our City. As an illustration of how the government should work and how your current Council is making an effort to work with the Mayor, one need only look at the Onley-Bateman intersection debate.
For whatever reason, the previous Council leadership found it easier to stop at “no” on this issue, while the current Council worked hard to get to “yes.” Initially, the current Council was repeatedly berated by the Daily Times. However, through hard work, your Council not only got to “yes” on the intersection, its position resulted in improved public safety, a substantial savings to the taxpayer, a design incorporating bike lanes and a quality partnership between the City and Salisbury University.
During the process, the newspaper generated a lot of unproductive, adversarial discussion. This detracted from the public’s understanding of what officials needed to consider and generated a lot of unnecessary public upset.
In a recent editorial, the Daily Times said that media focus on scandals like General Petraeus and Paula Broadwell was due to the media simply giving the public what it wants. People tell me that they don’t want the political pot-stirring the Daily Times dishes out. I hope the public will join me in encouraging the Daily Times to be a positive asset for our community by focusing on the real news of an issue instead of feelings and politics.
"On Your Side" Resumes
By Terry E. Cohen, Council President
The substantial work load of the Salisbury City Council over the last year suspended our work on this site. In addition to tending to the real business of the City, time and energy have been drawn away to deal with media circuses and unnecessary complications to getting work done. Nonetheless, we were still able to work on and move forward with numerous issues, from the Wastewater Treatment Plant, election redistricting and reapportionment, the Onley-Bateman intersection and the River's Edge project to a host of others.
However, it has become clear the posts need to resume. In today's Daily Times, I have an op-ed appearing in answer to last Sunday's (December 2) article and op-ed concerning policy disagreements within our City government. Instead of focusing on the substance of the differing viewpoints, the newspaper again focused on emotions and personalities.
As I note in my op-ed, there were too many misleading statements and inaccuracies to address in the limited space the newspaper allows me once a month - in one day alone, the Daily Times was able to devote at 2.5 times as much word count to the discussion as I'm allowed for a month.
Therefore, stay tuned today and throughout the week for corrections of the record and discussion of the issues based on their merits.
Thank you for reading and, as always, feel free to contact us with your questions, comments, concerns and ideas.
The substantial work load of the Salisbury City Council over the last year suspended our work on this site. In addition to tending to the real business of the City, time and energy have been drawn away to deal with media circuses and unnecessary complications to getting work done. Nonetheless, we were still able to work on and move forward with numerous issues, from the Wastewater Treatment Plant, election redistricting and reapportionment, the Onley-Bateman intersection and the River's Edge project to a host of others.
However, it has become clear the posts need to resume. In today's Daily Times, I have an op-ed appearing in answer to last Sunday's (December 2) article and op-ed concerning policy disagreements within our City government. Instead of focusing on the substance of the differing viewpoints, the newspaper again focused on emotions and personalities.
As I note in my op-ed, there were too many misleading statements and inaccuracies to address in the limited space the newspaper allows me once a month - in one day alone, the Daily Times was able to devote at 2.5 times as much word count to the discussion as I'm allowed for a month.
Therefore, stay tuned today and throughout the week for corrections of the record and discussion of the issues based on their merits.
Thank you for reading and, as always, feel free to contact us with your questions, comments, concerns and ideas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
