Thornwood Development at Neshoba and Germantown Road is an Example of Mixed-Use Smart Growth
Citizens might wonder why a single appointment to the Industrial Development Board (first discussed in the January 22 blog post) is so important that I am shining a light on this issue for the third time in a week. Today I attempt to explain that in the simplest possible way. To do that I first need to briefly review "Smart Growth".
Smart Growth, adopted in 2007, allows for special zoning classifications in certain areas, ensuring denser development in our land-locked community. We are following the recommendations of Smart Growth America.
We have adopted Smart Growth, we have embraced Smart Growth, and we have touted Smart Growth. I would love to have a nickel for every utterance of the term "Smart Growth" that has come out of our leaders' mouths. Yet I have not heard one single mention of the significant reservations about the Tax-Increment Financing administered by IDBs which are listed in a paper in the Smart Growth America website. Why not? Are our city leaders even aware of these reservations? Or are they cherry picking what they like about Smart Growth America, and ignoring articles that the organization deems worthy enough to include on the website? Recently, the possible use of TIFs in Germantown has been in the news: Germantown Seeks to Bolster Development with TIFs
Excerpt:
Again, TIFs are the responsibility of the IDB, which is comrised of citizens appointed by the Mayor. Elected officials cannot have much oversight over the IDB because of the need for the bonds to be designated as "revenue" bonds, and not backed by the full faith and credit of the City. Let's look at a few things that the paper on the Smart Growth America website has to say about TIFs: Tax-Increment Financing- The Need for Transparency and Accountability in Local Economic Development Studies
Excerpt:
Please note that TIFs are meant to spur redevelopment of areas in difficult economic straits.
Even the use of TIFs to fuel development in previously undeveloped areas is deemed inappropriate in the paper. Note added 1-28: TIFs in Memphis have been used to encourage redevelopment in marginal areas of town, such as around Graceland, Highland Row near U of M, and the Greenlaw area of downtown. These are all in areas of needed redevelopment. Memphis has not used TIFs in areas of prime real estate such as near Laurelwoood. Exactly which portion of Germantown are in economic straits? I cannot quickly think of any. I am not saying that there are no such places. All I am saying that the IDB should limit its use of TIFs to areas which truly need a boost to start development or to help enable redevelopment. But again, it is not just I saying that. IDB should at least roughly follow the recommendation of the academic paper endorsed by Smart Growth America, and limit TIFs to economically challenged areas. What are the consequences of not limiting TIFs to economically challenged areas? Among the possible adverse consequences attributed to TIFs are the following (listed in the paper): 1. Failure to achieve public goals. By definition, TIFs take money away from schools and parks (unless the property tax is raised to make up the difference). 2. The process of TIFs, which often take place without public awareness and input, create the opportunity for favoritism and corruption. 3. TIFs can create "slush funds" for public officials.
These and other adverse consequences are fully discussed in the "Executive Summary" of the above link. Here is the newly approved IDB TIF Policy:
I see no reference in this new policy to the types of areas that are appropriate for TIFs. Such distinctions should be part of the TIF policy. Since they are not, we may be likely to experience the adverse consequences. As I discussed in my January 22 post, the public's best opportunity for oversight is the BMA's approval or disapproval of the Mayor's nominees. It is essential that IDB members be individuals who will use TIFs in the manner intended.
The Commercial Appeal gives us a good idea of the flavor of the BMA meeting
Monday night when it discusses the mayor’s nomination to the IDB Board—Dave
Klevan. This harkens back to the good old days when this blog focused mostly on tracking Commercial Appeal articles.
In her comments in Citizens to be Heard, Sarah Freeman noted that that
putting the vote into the consent agenda of a BMA meeting did not
legally constitute a nomination. The City should have been well prepared
for that, as I had noted that point in my first blog post about this issue. Had the administration been smart about this they could have
discovered this well before the meeting. Instead, they were forced to
take a five minute break in the middle of the meeting to consult
with the City Attorney, who agreed with Ms. Freeman. The nomination was
made Monday night, and the vote was put off until the next BMA meeting.
Here is a clip of Ms. Freeman speaking on the issue and the actions that ensued.
Other parts of the discussion had to do with the nomination itself, and the dates of the applications.
In the following clip, Alderman Barzizza extolls the many virtues of the
candidate who actually got her application in by the deadline--Janet Geyer.
Dean Massey points out all the errors and inconsistencies in the process
of making the nomination. There was public notice of all commission and
board positions, and the public notice included the opening on the IDB.
That public notice listed an application deadline of November 30. Was
that a sham? Here is Clay Bailey’s take on this from Outside the Loop in the Commercial Appeal:
Dean Massey makes a convincing case that the opening on the IDB Board
was held specifically for Mr.
Klevan. Mr. Klevan could not have legally been able to serve in this
position as a sitting alderman.
Here is an abbreviated timeline.
I find the December 12 entry particularly interesting.
Mayor Palazzolo gets in his two cents worth about Mr. Klevan as he makes his formal nomination. He makes no attempt to compare his credentials those of Ms. Geyer. Since this is the position vacated by Greg Marcom, I am wondering if this position isn't the consolation prize for a favored alderman candidate who loses an election. He also explains that applications deadlines are squishy.....or something.
Among the items on the Consent Agenda of the upcoming BMA meeting on Monday, January 23, is the appointment of former alderman Dave Klevan to the Industrial Development Board. Here is the item:
It is the Mayor's responsibility to nominate an IBD Board member. BMA has the responsibility to approve (or disapprove) that nomination. Here is the operative language:
When there is a vacancy, here is what is supposed to happen:
The Mayor and the BMA should carefully consider the qualifications of the candidates. The IDB, it is important to note, operates mostly independently of the BMA. It is authorized to issue tax-free revenue bonds for development projects that meet certain criteria. Revenue bonds, as the name would indicate, are paid from a project's revenue; these bonds are not backed by the full faith and credit of the City. The IDB's independence from the BMA in issuing bonds is essential to ensuring that the City bears no responsibility for paying the bonds in the event of a shortfall in a project's revenue.
In a recent article about the Germantown IDB, the Commercial Appeal discusses another aspect of the financing that may be obtained from the IDB--TIF, or tax increment financing: Germantown seeks to bolster development with TIF
TIFs can work for the benefit of both the developer and the City, but only if careful attention is given to details, such as ensuring that the City is not saddled with the expenses of maintaining an asset (such as a garage) that could burden the City with repair costs in the future. It is also important to avoid speculative ventures with developers who may not be able to weather the next financial downturn. The City does not want the IDB-issued revenue bonds to fail, because that could indirectly affect the City's own credit worthiness, or worse, directly affect the ability of the IDB to issue more revenue bonds. Given the IDB's need for independence from the BMA, the potential for transparency issues is real. This blog may address any such issues that arise. Indeed, one might question whether that an upscale community like Germantown even needs an IDB, since the usual focus of an IDB is to boost employment in marginal areas. Nominations for the current vacancy for the IDB were first discussed in the BMA meeting held December 20. The Mayor stated that the IDB Board had one opening, but that it was not going to be filled at this time. At this point, the November 30 deadline application had already passed for the public to apply for positions on the various commissions and boards, including the IDB. Following the Mayor's statement, Alderman Barzizza, aware that an application had been submitted, recommended that applicant-- Janet Geyer. The discussion concerning the IDB then terminated, with the Mayor saying he would make a decision later. Here is the audio:
Subsequently, on December 28, Mr. Klevan submitted his application. The timing of his application is interesting, coming as it did almost a full month after the formal deadline for applications for the appointments to boards and commissions. Was the position held open so that Mr. Klevan could apply later? Why did he notapply during the time frame given the general public? Here is Ms. Geyer's application, submitted on 11-17-2016: (click to enlarge)
In her application, Ms. Geyer's listed as her "special qualifications" the following: While working as the Assistant Administrator of Collierville for 3 years, I was the staff liaison for PILOTS, responsible for oversight, compliance and new applications. I also served as the Pension Committee Chair. I also developed, ran and provided metrics for the town's community survey-2 years-reviewed department budgets, prepared annexation budgets, summaries, etc. I am a certified Municipal Finance Officer.
These qualifications, particularly her work with PILOTS (payment in lieu of taxes), appear to make Ms. Geyer particularly well suited for the position.
Here is Mr. Klevan's application, submitted on 12-28-2016:
In his application, Mr. Klevan listed as his "special qualifications" the following: 20+ years as a community volunteer
Mr. Klevan, to be fair, obviously completed his application quickly, so I would urge you to check out the website that he posted in support of his candidacy for alderman so that you can see a more complete biography here. This is an important position affecting the City's future commercial development. As noted above, due to the need for the issued bonds to be "revenue bonds" (as opposed to backed by the full faith and credit of hte City) the IDB operates mostly independently of the BMA. The BMA does have responsibility to approve or disapprove the Mayor's nominee. The nomination must not be rubber-stamped, and the BMA should take its advise-and-consent role seriously.
Sadly, correct procedure has not been followed in this case. It is inappropriate, I submit, for the Mayor to announce a nomination to an important board by merely putting it on the "Consent Agenda" just a few days before the meeting. Generally, items on the Consent Agenda are routine, mundane matters (for instance, the purchase of lawnmowers). The Consent Agenda should not be used for considering important Mayoral nominations. The nomination itself should take place in an open forum, with plenty of time available thereafter for the BMA to consider the qualifications of the person being nominated.
In this instance, very little notice was given, and this matter's placement on the "Consent Agenda" leaves the distinct impression that the approval was intended to be a mere formality.
Thank you, Germantown citizens, for your calls and emails!
Tonight I arrived at City Hall, with my well-timed three minute speech in hand, and took a seat. The agenda was announced...........and modified. The package of zoning changes that I was prepared to speak against had been tabled in its entirety in the Executive Session, to be discussed at the BMA retreat in February. At that point, it may be sent back to the Planning Commission.
Thank you, Germantown citizens, for your emails and calls to our aldermen. We truly made a difference! Keep alert, as we are going to see this ordinance come up again shortly, most likely modified if they do as they say and try to involve homeowners' associations. Please look at my other posts about this, because the history of this is pretty scary. We came very close to being saddled with zoning changes that were grossly misrepresented by the City administration. Major Proposed Zoning Changes, a Public Hearing, and Nobody Came Bars and Liquor Stores, in "Transition" T4 Zoning And thank you, Board of Mayor and Aldermen, for doing the right thing. Now I can go watch the football game!
The pictured establishment could
now be allowed in T4 zoned areas in Germantown if the City implements zoning ordinance changes that were
characterized by Cameron Ross (Germantown Economic and Community Development
Director) as a "general maintenance and review of zoning codes and processes". Ho, hum, just an inconsequential change to your residential neighborhood. No need, felt the City, to let us know about minor changes like bars being allowed directly across the street from single family homes.
This zoning change is up for a public hearing at the next BMA meeting on January 9. An earlier "public hearing" gave little notice of the magnitude of the changes, and the public is now being given another opportunity. See my previous blog posts for more detailed discussion of the history:
Exactly where are Germantown's T4 neighborhoods? Here are just two of them, and
I will use one of them as my main example:
Apology: the lower red circle is a bit too big. Thornwood is T5 designation, It is the area just east of Thornwood that is T4.
The T4 neighborhood adjacent to Germantown Heights abuts single
family residences where kids ride their bikes to Riverdale School. The school
is just west of the area, off Neshoba. Under the proposed zoning changes, there
would be NO buffer zone between these homes and establishments like the one
pictured.
Neshoba North is another residential neighborhood directly
affected by this same change. Undoubtedly the absence of a buffer zone would
negatively impact the value of the homes in these areas.
When this triangular-shaped property was originally zoned T4 under Smart
Growth, residents fought it, but although they were unable to stop the T4 designation, they at least obtained from the City assurances that
the new T4 zoning would both prevent bars and liquor stores from coming to their
area, and serve as a buffer zone between the residential and the commercial (T5) areas. Now, in a "bait and switch" fashion, the City wants to retract these assurances.
If the citizens of Germantown want to allow bars and the like to abut
residential areas, so be it. But shouldn't we have greater transparency about
this? And discussion?
These proposed major changes are hardly routine. They should
have been highlighted by the City. That would have been “true” transparency.
While Sarah Freeman was able to uncover other significant changes earlier, she was able to uncover this particular change (allowing
bars and liquor stores in T4 areas) only this week, so
deeply was it disguised in the red-lined changes of the proposed zoning
ordinance provided to us by the City.
Page 205 of the City's red lined changes:
This expansion of permissible T4 commercial activities was noted neither in the BMA meetings nor the Planning Commission meetings. Ms. Freeman happened to
notice the above table from the City's link to the red lined changes, and
she called Cameron Ross to ask the meaning of it.
It is preposterous that changes as substantial as this were
characterized by Ross as merely "cleaning up the language" in the zoning
ordinance. See Commercial Appeal article
The other T4 area shown in the image above is immediately east of Thornwood.
The development most affected is Somerset, the new expensive custom homes being
built by Regency Homes.
There are other T4 areas scattered around, mostly off Poplar and Poplar
Pike. Here is a rather small version of the current zoning map. If you click on
it to enlarge it you might be able to read it.
Why, you may ask, doesn't the City have the most current official zoning map on its web page? Cameron Ross claims that technical reasons prevent the City
from posting it; however, Sarah Freeman bought a hard copy of it from the City for
five dollars, and I had that copy scanned for seven dollars. Between the two of
us and the scanning services of FedEx Office, and the free services of Google,
this blog now is able to give you the transparency that the City has been unable or unwilling to provide.
Now, this is a pretty big file, but I am puzzled that someone who
is not particularly tech savvy (me) can provide this and the City cannot. If they are worried about security, why not establish a separate cloud account for public documents? I do not claim to be tech savvy, but this does not seem like rocket science. How canthe zoning document even be interpreted without access to the most current zoning map? Importantly, a precedent has been set and a protocol has been established for considering changes in zoning with respect to alcohol. Any change should be considered separately from other ordinance changes, not as part of a group, where it can be easily missed, by citizens and aldermen alike. Our administration and our elected officials should be following the precedent set when three readings took place which clearly stated what was being voted on, in 2013-2014:
Please note that this change was not buried in a large document in an incomprehensible table. And, in March of 2014, the amendment was passed.
I have touched here on just one of the many substantive proposed changes in the
zoning ordinance here, and, in summary, not only was this change not mentioned during either the meeting
of the Planning Commission or the BMA meeting, the change was also buried in a table in a lengthy document and the most current zoning map was not provided to the public. Let's bring back the transparency we had in 2013-2014!
Icoveredtwo other proposed changes in my
previous blog post-- (see previous blog linked above for more details):
1. Garage "lighting" would be changed to "lighting
fixtures" in the T4R neighborhoods. This seems to affect only Nottoway. If
Gill Properties was to sell its interest in Travure, then the next owner could
build a garage with lights shining into the Nottoway homes, as long as the
lighting fixtures were obscured. Why this has to be rewritten is a
complete mystery. That should be a question asked of the administration. Whose idea was this? It makes no sense to change this because this only affects one property. If it applied more generally, why would we want commercial garage lighting to intrude on neighborhoods, when it can easily be blocked?
2. With warrants, one story buildings will be allowed in the Smart Growth
areas, a major change from the "dense" retail that was envisioned
with Smart Growth. This is a larger question. Does Smart Growth itself need to be revisited, due to market forces?
Citizens who care about these zoning issues should contact their aldermen, and
attend the public hearing Monday. Please urge the alderman to vote against this group of substantive zoning changes, which have been grossly misrepresented as "general maintenance." Each one merits its own separate vote and discussion. To do less is to obfuscate, be opaque as opposed to transparent, and to break with established protocol.
This is a reminder that the long awaited results of the school site selection committee will be made public on January 5. From the GMSD website:
I want to give GMSD administration a HUGE round of applause for their transparency. A very comprehensive report on the results of the survey is on their website for all to see. As an example, here are two charts that I found there.
In addition, the commentary by the survey takers has been compiled and included. It is very comprehensive. If you haven't already checked it out, I recommend that you take a look.
The deck that was stacked by the administration for the appointments of liaisons to the city commissions was shuffled in the special called meeting on Monday night. Please see my original post on this subject here: Deck is Stacked with Board Liaison Appointments I struggled with how to report on this, but I decided to begin with the video, and end with some of my commentary, even though my commentary repeats some of Sarah Freeman's observations on the timeline. Ms. Freeman attended the meeting, recorded it, edited the video, and referenced times in the video where various things were discussed. She also provided some commentary. I merely uploaded it and viewed it a few times. She wisely edited out discussions concerning the citizens who would serve on the commissions. According to her, one can get an audio version of the full meeting from the city. Regular BMA meetings are videoed, but this meeting was held in a conference room and official video is not available. For this reason we owe Ms. Freeman a debt of gratitude for the time and effort it took to provide the public with transparency.
Here is the video timeline provided by her to us, as well as some commentary by her:
This video was trimmed from one-hour in length to
approximately one-half that time. The entire audio of the meeting may be
obtained through a TN Open Records request submitted to the City Clerk, Michele
Betty. This video was shot and the transcriptions created by Sarah Wilkerson
Freeman.
00:05 The Board of Mayor and Aldermen, staff, and City
Attorney file in a take their seats in the Mayor’s Conference Room.
1:00 Mayor Mike Palazzolo calls the meeting to order.
They welcome the newly elected alderman, Dean Massey.
2:04 Palazzolo states that the aldermen’s “packets”
(documents reviewed for the meeting) had been made public.
3:04 Alderman Forrest Owens nominates Alderman Mary
Ann Gibson for Vice Mayor. She was unanimously elected.
3:26 Alderman Liaison appointments:
3:42 David Harris, City Attorney, addresses the body
on aspects of the Charter and Ordinances that apply.
5:10 City Administrator Patrick Lawton further explains
Charter and Ordinance stipulations in regard to aldermen liaisons for certain
commissions.
6:27 Lawton explains that the Ordinance states that
Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) alderman liaison will stay in that position for
his or her term of office. Alderman Gibson had the position in 2016, but the
Administration’s slate for 2017 awarded that appointment to Alderman Owens.
Instead, the Ordinance seems to indicate that Ms. Gibson should continue to
serve in that position through her term of office.
7:56 John Barzizza invokes a point of order. He states
that last year Mr. Lawton called him and said that Alderman Gibson wanted the
Economic and Development liaison position which Mr. Barzizza held. Mr. Barzizza
wanted to retain that position, so Mr. Lawton asked Barzizza to relinquish his
BZA positon to Ms. Gibson instead. At that point, the Ordinance was not
invoked.
9:04 Ms. Gibson stated, “BZA was never even part of my
conversation, so I thought that you did not want that.”
9:35 Mr. Barzizza presses to understand why the
Ordinance requirements were not enforced when he was the BZA liaison. “We
should have addressed it last year.”
10:11 Alderman Barzizza indicates that the episode involved
Mr. Lawton’s efforts to influence the liaison appointments. Mr. Lawton: “No
way, no how do I have the authority to say this alderman will have this
position, this alderman will have that position.”
11:22 Barzizza: “I respectfully protest since it
wasn’t brought up last year. I respectfully protest now that it happens that we
just found out after, and no disrespect to you [Alderman Gibson] because it is
certainly not your fault.”
11:40 David Harris restates the Ordinance.
12:23 Lawton: “Alderman Barzizza, all due respect, I
was not aware of this language. When I was looking at this today, going back
through my notes, making sure we’re prepared for this evening, I saw this in
here, I called the City Attorney and I said, ‘Mr. Harris, help me interpret
what I am looking at here because this appears to read this way.’ I was not
aware of this language in this section of the Code of Ordinances regarding the
BZA until this afternoon and had it clarified with the City Attorney.”
13:10 Alderman Dean Massey asks to see exactly where
the language is in the Ordinance.
14:34 Gibson reiterated that last year when they made
the selections the BZA liaison appointment was “never on my radar.” But she did
want to retain it now. She stated that “We had our one-on-one yesterday for
another discussion with our attorney and I did communicate that yesterday
afternoon to our Administrator and so I explained that I would like to do that
[retain BZA liaison position]. I am certain that is where the conversation
started with the Ordinance.”
15:42 Massey points out that the language in the
Ordinance allows for a change—“the language says that it is concurrent with
their respective term of office or appointment.”
Gibson states that she is “not unclear on that.”
16:37 Barzizza says that he is just pointing out that
it wasn’t addressed last year and he is “pushing back as a result of that.”
16:38 Patrick reiterates “Again, Alderman Barzizza, I
apologize. I was not aware of the language, John, at that point, it was only
today.” Barzizza says that Lawton did not need to apologize and “Let’s just
move on.”
17:00 The meeting moves on. Harris explains the quasi-judicial Planning
Commission and DRC provisions in the Ordinance.
17:49 Alderman Liaison Appointments:
Palazzolo: “What you have been provided is only a
recommended slate. At this time you can talk among, or trade, bring up
commissions you may or may not want.”
The selection in liaisons is not defined in the
Charter specifically. But in the past,
the Aldermen took turns in choosing and changed up the sequence in which they
chose every year. It should be noted that since 2015, the Administration has
instead prepared “slates” of appointments.
Palazzolo: “There has been no pattern in twelve to
twenty years of making the slate in front of you. What we did was we assembled
what people served on last year put that beside, to fill [the positions
formerly held by] the alderman that just retired from the Board, those
positions, and kind of slot them through with peoples’ different various backgrounds.
And so at this point in time this is open to your selection. It is good open
governing that you guys discuss it, opposed to what we have done in the past
where you communicate with Patrick. Patrick is unfortunately at times the fall
guy. We communicate back. Again, it is
all settled already. This format tonight lets you discuss it more and open with
your colleagues. What a great time for that. So the table, the floor, is open for
anyone who would like to make any horse trading, changes, any discussion, dialogue.”
He then adds Alderman Gibson to the BZA as it fulfills an ordinance
requirement.
20:15 Floor is opened. Massey brings up a scheduling
conflict with two commissions on his “slate:” Environmental and Great Hall.
21:16 Massey requests to “horse trade” with Alderman Rocky
Janda for the Personnel Advisory Commission. He explained that he is an
insurance broker by profession and that Alderman Klevan [unseated by Massey]
had the position last year. Janda agrees to trade PAC for the Environmental
Commission position.
22:23 John Barzizza asks to do some horse trading with
Janda for Financial Advisory Commission. Janda says emphatically, “Nope. I want
that one.”
22:48 Massey: “Mayor, one of the things that I have
heard from some of the citizens is that we have two aldermen that have control
of some of these quasi-judicial and other very important commissions. And that I
don’t think it was done intentionally, but Alderman Owens got PC [Planning
Commission], BZA [Board of Zoning Appeals] and Design Review. And then Alderman
Janda has the Audit [Commission], the Financial Advisory [Commission], and then
you [Janda] have given up the Personnel Advisory Commission. . . . And then the
Retirement.”
23:44 Janda: “I think it is important that we have a
vertical in terms of knowing the numbers and I am hesitant to give up the
Personnel. We have the raises there. We have the benefits there. I think it is
important that the person who is in the FAC have definite communication with
you, and I will have to have communication in Personnel so we know what we are
doing in terms of our budgeting and stuff. It’s as needed [it meets “as
needed”] and it is also the first six months . . . . I have expertise in this
area. Done it. But that’s one reason I like the Personnel Advisory Commission
because you know what the raises are going to be and you know how it is going
to affect . . . you already know essentially what’s about to happen. And you’ll
get communication on that, but I have had those [commissions] I guess for two
or three years.” [Alderman Klevan had PAC in 2016.]
24:34 Massey: “The
perception is that we have lost our system of checks and balances.”
24:38 Janda: “Well, that’s what you guys are for. You
can attend, anybody . . . of course you ask permission, I don’t know if they
communicated that to you, before you go to someone’s commission. But you know
everyone’s welcome at every commission meeting. And every alderman can be.
Y’all are part of the system of checks and balances. Plus the commission is
made up of citizens. Don’t’ forget that. The FAC’s got twenty-four.”
Owens: “I was
not exactly thrilled about having all three of the development commissions, so
now that with Mary Ann having Board of Zoning Appeals I feel much more better
about it. I mean I did serve . . . I have a Master’s degree in City Planning and
served here for ten years. So, Design Review and Planning I am comfortable
with. By nature of this discussion here today it kind of evened out a little
better than it was originally slated to be.”
26:07 Barzizza: “Forrest, would you give up Parks and
Rec.”
Owens considered it, but asked if there was another
one he was interested in.
Barzizza: “How about Design Review?”
26:43 Owens: “I would be winning to give up Design
Review.”
Aldermen Owens made a motion that the aldermen
commission liaison appointments be accepted as discussed and the vote was
unanimous to close the selection process. The meeting continued. Citizen
members of the commissions were reviewed and voted on.
In the final analysis, the three quasi-judicial
development commissions were divided among three different aldermen as had been
the practice in the past. Alderman Janda retained three of the financially
related commissions, but Alderman Massey secured the liaison position for the
Personnel Advisory Commission, one that is critical to the budgeting process.
As Alderman Owens remarked, “By nature of this
discussion here today it kind of evened-out a little better than it was
originally slated to be.” Indeed. But the pre-meeting “slate” system created an
unfortunate dynamic in which two aldermen pre-emptively held significant power
over future developments and financial sectors of city government. This placed
the onus on the aldermen who had been granted no such power to confront their
colleagues and try to wrestle even some positions away. That is not exactly a
democratic process, it certainly isn’t fair nor wise. Likewise, it was
discovered that the Ordinance had neither been read nor followed in previous
years by the Administration.
But the light has been shown on how our city
government works when the voices and concerns of the people are represented and
the camera is rolling. That is a victory.
As Mayor Palazzolo stated, “And now the work begins.”
My Commentary:
It is interesting that four out of the five aldermen seemed to have issues with the "slate" that Patrick Lawton had submitted. Only Rocky Janda seemed comfortable with his assignments, as he cited the advantages of "vertical integration" in budgeting and finance matters. Besides the obvious issues of concentration of power in the "slate", the administration itself had two immediate changes: 1. Mary Anne Gibson had been assigned to be liaison to the Library Commission. There is no liaison to the Library Commission. 2. Mary Anne Gibson had lost her position on the Board of Zoning Appeals on the slate, and it had been given to Forrest Owens. This is despite this (from the Commercial Appeal article): "It's not perfect, but it's recommendations based on experience and boards members have served on in the past," City Administrator Patrick Lawton said of the process earlier in the day."
(Note: If serving as a liaison to a particular commission in the past was a criteria, why was this position moved on the slate from Mary Anne Gibson to Forrest Owens?) That was the least of the problems, it turned out. Not only did Mary Anne Gibson want to remain the liaison to the Board of Zoning Appeals, it also was against the charter to change the liaison to this particular commission in the middle of the term, without her consent! Patrick Lawton claimed he only discovered this the day before when looking over the charter. From what was said in the meeting, it is quite possible that Mary Ann Gibson called this to his attention. Then it gets even more embarrassing for the administration. John Barzizza noted that he had specifically been asked to give up this (or another) position the prior year by Patrick Lawton, and now he finds out that this went against the charter. He registered a protest. Mary Anne Gibson says she had not originally even expressed an interest in the BZA position, and correctly distanced herself from the decision to take the position away from Mr. Barzizza. Now that she has served on it, she wants to stake her claim. All this discussion takes place in the beginning of the video, as noted above by Sarah Freeman. I found this quite fascinating. There are more details that can be accessed by viewing the video. Because of the publicity of the issue raised by Sarah Freeman reported in this blog, the questions by the Commercial Appeal writer in response to the issues raised in the blog, and finally the admission that there were two large errors on the "slate", the slate was now being characterized as a starting point, and that some "horse trading" was fine. If you look at my previous post, you will see that the "slate" was not originally characterized as being a "starting point", but more of a done deal, from the office of Patrick Lawton:
"SUBJECT: LIAISON ALDERMEN FOR 2017"
If he had originally hoped for discussion, perhaps it would have been more prudent to note this as a starting point for discussion, or at least put "proposed" in the subject. Fortunately the administration does seem to respond to public scrutiny at times, so we should be thankful that the community has some watchdogs like Sarah Freeman to help provide that scrutiny. Without her efforts the charter provision on the BZA liaison could very well have remained undiscovered, and the subsequent "horsetrading" would not have occurred. The rest of the meeting had to do with the horsetrading. You can check the timeline above for more information on that, or view the video. As it turns out, Forrest Owens expressed discomfort with being a liaison to all three quasi judicial commissions, and after he gave up BZA back to Mary Anne Gibson, he also traded away being Design and Review board liaison to John Barzizza (Rocky Janda said "no" to Mr. Barzizza's request to trade Finance). Dean Massey thought it would be logical for him to take over as the liaison to Personnel, because he had experience in this area and it had been held by his predecessor (Mr. Klevan) in the past. The shift in this position from Mr. Klevan's alderman position to Rocky Janda was another example in which the experience of the board members and what aldermen had served on in the past did not seem to have been considered by the "slate." Rocky Janda agreed to trade the Personnel liaison position, although he then noted the value of vertical integration. The Personnel Commission is particularly important in light of issues raised in Commercial Appeal articles last summer, and noted in these past blog posts: Charter, Charter, What's in the Charter? And What is the City Administrator's Salary? Thank you Jane Roberts-Vacation Buybacks and Other Perks Then there is the issue of those pesky insurance policies that are still so costly to the city-- Protecting Upper Level Germantown Employees Comes at High Cost to Taxpayers Shining a Light on Germantown wishes the very best to all our aldermen in their positions of responsibility. As I reflect on the last year, I feel a lot of gratitude for the citizens who care enough to be informed about governance issues, and who read this blog.
However, I am particulary grateful for the citizens who serve our community in official capacities. We all need to remember that governance often involves conflict, and that the citizens can be better informed when decisions are hashed out in public, even if that conflict can look "undignified" on the surface. The complete list of the aldermen liaison positions is read by Mayor Palazzolo at the end of the video, and the newly shuffled slate is passed unanimously.
