We were standing in the parking lot of the assembly chambers when I asked a retired friend, an accomplished man who is occasionally outspoken, if he would run for the assembly.
He laughed and said, “The assembly? Are you kidding me? I’ll show you the borough assembly.” He got into his sports car and drove around in circles.
I don’t doubt that his perception is shared by some – if not many – residents, and for good reason. The assembly can seem to be in continual battle either with itself or with others, precipitating bloodlettings like manager firings and recalls far too regularly.
I’ve been on the inside and outside of that seeming dysfunction and I’ve come to believe that part of the problem is that too often no one is looking out for the effectiveness of the assembly. Further, there are parties in our government who stand to benefit politically from a divided assembly, which can include the manager, the mayor, the staff, and parts of the public.
When the assembly struggles to reach a decision or fails to address an issue or campaign promise, the manager can, in contrast, appear resolute; the mayor, magisterial, and the staff, professional. Up goes the cry: “Why can’t the assembly get its act together?”
One of the difficulties is technical: We don’t elect an assembly. We elect individual members, at least two each year, and sometimes more. Each member can have very differing political views. If the assembly as a group has any collective goals or direction, what is it? They are our leaders, after all. But they can only lead when four of its six members are in agreement.
For efficient government, the assembly needs an agenda, and its agenda has to be the government’s foremost priority. But most years, assemblies never get around to creating this generally agreed on plan for what they want to achieve.
My assembly developed a rough list of priorities, through a survey and assembly retreat held in November 2016. That list, unfortunately, was quickly forgotten or deliberately submerged by staff, who didn’t agree with portions of it.
To my knowledge, creating such a list hasn’t been tried since.
Former assembly member Margaret Friedenauer was strong on this issue. Her assembly developed a list of goals or strategic plan, but was often sidetracked by the issues of the day, which is not untypical. At meetings, Friedenauer would ask, “When are we going to get back to our plan?”
As community members, we tend to latch on to issues and to personalities. Most citizens plod along, vaguely aware of local government until there’s a hot-button issue or a controversial firing. Those we can grasp. But for our town’s government to become more effective and functional, citizens instead must latch on to governance and process.
Governance and process are like flossing your teeth: Boring and absolutely critical.
My own political evolution is that personalities and issues are of lesser importance. The Chilkat Center may stay funded, or it may wilt for insufficient public support and close. We may have assembly members who sew divisiveness, or don’t read their packets or voice crazy ideas. Neither of those is as important as the assembly collectively reaching consensus on issues and acting decisively.
Assembly actions may be great victories for liberals or for conservatives. It doesn’t matter so much because every year, with every municipal election, citizens get the chance to adjust leadership to their liking.
Why does the assembly have such difficulty making decisions? Generally, it’s a lack of meaningful discussion that results in a general consensus and direction to the staff. Why doesn’t that happen?
The state’s Open Meetings Act forbids much discussion outside of meetings, and at regular meetings, discussion is limited for time’s sake to two comments on an issue per assembly member before voting.
During my term, the assembly recognized that a lack of open discussion was hobbling us. We tried holding open committee meetings where we could discuss new ideas and brainstorm, but progress was stifled by Roberts’ Rules of Order, under which the mayor called on members, one at a time, to speak. Instead of discussion, what resulted was a succession of statements and positions. Ideas expressed didn’t necessarily build on each other or even relate to each other.
One option for more meaningful discussion is to suspend the rules, a meeting option that allows members to speak freely between themselves, without interruption by the mayor or the limits of Roberts’ Rules. It’s like sitting around a table at the coffee shop, where the benefits and drawbacks of ideas can be more quickly hashed out.
Annually drawing up a strategic plan, revisiting it regularly, and holding more free-form discussions during the year are two avenues an assembly can take to improve effectiveness, preventing itself from driving around in circles.
They should at least be attempted.