Paying one's dues: The city's boards and commissions
"If computers get too powerful, we can organize them into committees. That'll do them in."
---Author Unknown
"The optimum committee has no members."
---Norman Ralph Augustine
“Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.”
---Dr. Seuss
The Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee is hosting its annual get-to-gether to perform the arduous task of "screening" people to be chosen as possible appointments to fill vacancies on the city's boards and commissions. However, the process is becoming less about "screening" for interviews by the full city council and more about turning over the citywide appointments to the mayor and the ward specific appointments which are intended to put the city in compliance with Measure GG are left to the mayor and the involved council member. With the exception of three boards and commissions or the "special" ones as they are called, this same process is used whether or not the terms involved are expired or not.
The current members of this committee include Mayor Ron Loveridge who chairs it and the Governmental Affairs Committee which is chaired by Councilman Frank Schiavone and includes both Councilman Rusty Bailey and Councilman Steve Adams among its members.
What's interesting is how little interviewing will be taking place, as the process even for filling brand new terms is becoming more and more akin to appointments being made by elected officials, a trend that's become more noticeable after the passage of Measure GG but even more than that, in the past year.
Some of the vacancies are ongoing which means that once they hit the 60 day mark, it's the job of the mayor to appoint whether they are ward specific seats or not. One of the major reasons for using this process for midterm resignations is to avoid having to continuously go through the regular screening and interviewing process for each position and to fill the vacancies as quickly as possible so that the board or commission can operate efficiently and effectively without too much of a break in continuity. So expediency has been the major reasoning behind the process of appointments of commissioners by elected officials more than any other reason.
But some vacancies were not dealt with for several months after commissioners resigned including three people who had served on the Human Relations Commission.
Consequently, some of the positions including those three are left to Loveridge to handle at the point of the year when terms officially begin and expire, yet even though the expediency factor is not as pronounced as it would be if he was faced with these decisions midterm (which in these cases, he was), he is utilizing the same process that he would have been if he had selected them in midterm.
However, that process involving midterm resignations is being carried over to fill vacancies on several of the city's boards and commissions that have resulted not from midterm resignations but from term expiration either by a commissioner "terming out" after two consecutive terms or completing one term and opting not to apply for reappointment. These include vacancies on the Airport Commission, the Human Relations Commission, the Commission on Disabilities, the Board of Library Trustees and the Metropolitan Museum Board. To fill these vacancies, the city council and mayor are opting out of a long-standing process of having the Mayor's Nomination and Screening Commission select applicants to be interviewed by the entire city council and mayor before all of them vote on the appointments.
It's not clear when and how the Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee which is entrusted with handling the appointment process of the city's boards and commissions and/or the city council changed its rules governing its screening and interviewing process that was once utilized for every board and commission. The meeting agendas for 2007 and 2006 don't show any publicly scheduled meetings to discuss the process that had been used by the committee let alone changing it. Admittingly, it's hard to know what the agenda was at its Feb. 22, 2006 meeting. If you click the link for that date here, this city council meeting agenda appears in lieu of any Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee meeting on that date.
The process being used this year does mirror one used at a meeting of this committee on Jan. 9, 2007 according to this minute record but in this case, most of the positions filled in the same matter had fewer or no applicants, particularly in the sixth and seventh wards. But what's interesting about this particular meeting is that this report submitted beforehand by City Clerk Colleen Nichols shows that for commissions such as the Human Relations Commission, the initial recommendation was to use the older process and select applicants for interview by the city council and a list of applicants was included in this report. However, as the minute record for that same meeting showed, this screening and interview process for the HRC and most the other boards and commissions was never actually carried out.
Meaning that the process entering into the meeting was different than the one that was there by its end. By meetings end, the task of selecting commissioners for the majority of the boards and commissions without conducting interviews was the one chosen by the members of the Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee. That's the process being used now.
Going back further in history yields few clues.
There's no online minute record for the screening and interviewing process in 2006 for the selection process. So likely, no such discussion took place.
Looking back at 2005, the minutes for the April 12 meeting show that this committee was set to interview applicants for openings on most of the city's boards and commissions having screened the applications during the meeting. That's the older process.
The Big Three and the others
Three of the city's boards and commissions are exempt from the newly expanded appointment process and they are the CPRC, the Planning Commission and the Board of Public Utilities. Those three bodies undergo the screening and interview process to fill all openings. Whether or not they benefit from this process will be discussed later.
But as for the rest of them, this is what will be happening this year. Below is a list of the commissions with vacancies. What kind they are, how the commissioners will be chosen and how many applicants are eligible or perhaps believed they were to be considered for positions that in reality, they have no real chance to be selected for.
What's significant about some of them is that the excuse for having the major and/or city council member of a given ward pick them is because the recruitment and selection pool is too small or nonexistent so the city officials are left with no other option than to do direct appointments. As you can see below, that's hardly ever the case in reality, certainly not in January 2007.
Airport Commission
Recommend the Mayor fill citywide vacancy from termed out.
Applicants eligible for citywide position: 26
Commission on Disabilities
Work with Ward Five Councilman to fill ward specific position (term expired March 2008)
Applicants eligible for ward specific position: 3
Cultural Heritage Board
Work with Ward Three and Ward Six council members to fill ward-specific positions (midterm departures)
Applicants eligible for Ward Three: 1
Applicants eligible for Ward Six: 0
Human Relations Commission
Request the mayor to fill five vacancies (two expiring, three ongoing)
Applicants eligible for vacancies: 63
Board of Library Trustees
Mayor work with Ward Four councilman to fill ward-specific vacancy (term expiration)
Applicants eligible for vacancy: 3
Metropolitan Museum Board
Request mayor fill two vacancies (one expiring, one citywide)
Applicants eligible for vacancies: 33
Parking, Traffic and Streets Commission
Request mayor to fill vacancy (ongoing)
Applicants eligible for vacancy: 30
As you can see, unlike was the case in 2007, only one body, the Cultural Board has one vacancy where no people have submitted applications to fill. For the rest of them, the range is from one to 63. Four of the city-wide boards have over 20 people who are interested enough in the process to have submitted applications. There is a pretty good list of applicants representing most of the wards and the oft-underrepresented wards are seeing more action than they have previously. A great deal of credit goes to the recruiting and advertisement efforts of City Clerk Colleen Nichols.
However, most of these people who went through the process presented to them have not only zero chances of getting picked by the Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee for an interview, but they probably have near zero chances of getting appointed at all.
Why?
Because unless they have a chance to have their applications screened for what they can bring to the process and have a chance to be interviewed which is especially beneficial in case they haven't had much contact or interaction with city officials, they have little chance, because without an interview process, it becomes all or mostly about name recognition. It becomes less about what you can bring to the process and your passion about serving the city in a voluntary capacity and more about who you know and more importantly, who knows you. So if filling out applications really worth the time spent doing so for the majority of even "qualified" individuals?
Okay, some say that means if you've got name recognition, you must be qualified, right? And if you don't, you haven't been in the "right" organizations, done the "right" community service or whatnot. But there are many talented people who *do* serve their communities and neighborhoods who don't hang out with city council members and the mayor. Should they be barred from having a chance for a fair process of selection?
"Paying one's dues" is another "qualification" that's unwritten that appears to come up especially for people who either move from one commission to the next or jump from one ship to the next. But these are boards and commissions open to city residents who volunteer their time, not business corporations where employees work their way up the corporate ladder or structural hierarchy. At least, you would think.
These things open up the city's boards and commissions to becoming more politicized, which is in part fallout from Measure GG as well as the actions of elected officials who see opportunities for shaping them and are taking them. That's unfortunate because it leaves a lot of passionate, talented people on the wayside who are interested in service more than politics. But it's the city's loss and it's because of the process it chooses to use that's exclusionary and not inclusive.
However, even with a seemingly more fair and open process for the "big three" boards and commissions, there isn't much difference in how politicized the boards and commissions have become.
Because even when you're applying to one of the three boards and commissions were interviews are actually conducted, there's not much difference in both selection processes. And if you have no chance of being interviewed at all, how well are your chances of being recognized by the mayor or city council members unless you've been in the right places? But does an interview always make the difference?
Look at the CPRC for example which appointed five individuals to fill both ward specific and citywide vacancies last year. Of those five, all of them were interviewed pursuant to the process utilized by the city council and mayor involving that particular commission. Of those five, only Peter Hubbard and Steve Simpson had applications which were screened at the meeting on Jan. 9, 2007. Hubbard had just termed off of the Board of Public Utilities and Simpson had once served on the planning commission. Prior experience on any city board and commission was practically mandated for serious consideration to serve on the CPRC, and in fact, two council members, Dom Betro and Ed Adkison said it was vital to pick candidates who had prior board and commission experience so that they "could hit the ground running" to face the challenges of the "current situation" involving the CPRC.
Say what? Show me that in writing! Where in the rule book does it say that a person has to have prior service on a board and commission to serve on a *certain* board or commission?
Now, the public has nothing to do with the "current situation" involving the CPRC. The city council including those two former members had more to do with it than any city resident who would apply for a board or commission like the CPRC with plenty of good qualities to bring to the table, actually believing they would have a serious chance for an interview. No where was it written on any application, brochure or pamphlet nor was it ever announced that prior board and commission experience was required to serve on the CPRC. So it's a bit disingenuous to add it as a requirement during the interview process, never mind it wasn't even listed as such during the application screening process, to make the final selections.
Maybe in a sense, people get addicted to the city's boards and commissions when it comes to serving on them. More and more, there are individuals who get picked for service on a second one after finishing a term or two on another one. That's if they can even wait until they've completed a term before jumping ship.
There's actually a guy on the CPRC who's main contribution to his interview was that he missed serving on a commission and he lamented not being able to park in the special parking places for commissioners. He actually received the most votes from elected officials to serve on that commission.
At the May 1, 2007 meeting to appoint a Ward Four and a Ward Six commissioner, both Linda Soubirous and Arthur Santore who would ultimately be appointed to those positions were among those selected for interview. At the Aug. 28, 2007 meeting, eventual commissioner Chani Beeman was included in the list of those interviewed for another citywide position. It was actually her second set of interviews because although she was not listed for interview at the Jan. 9 meeting, she was added to that list just before the candidates were interviewed for two citywide positions later filled by Hubbard and Simpson several weeks later.
In the Jan. 9 meeting, this report which lists all the recommendations and applicants from all seven wards for each board and commission, sure enough only Hubbard, Santore
and Simpson are included in the application list. Missing from the list are Beeman and Soubirous.
Those two names are also missing from a list of applicants included in this report from the May 1, 2007 meeting which is especially significant in Soubirous' case.
There's no report online available for the Aug. 28, 2007 meeting but then there was barely a meeting and if Loveridge hadn't been in attendance, there wouldn't have been much of a recognizable process either.
The names were missing in some cases because they were submitted by city council members either at a Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee meeting or just before the city council interview. Beeman's application was one she had filed when she first applied in 2000 and wasn't available at the Jan. 9 meeting or the interviews given several weeks later. Betro made a comment at the meeting that it got lost in the shuffle. In Soubirous' case, it's not clear whether or not an application was submitted or available to the public at all.
What's interesting about how the process worked involving the CPRC in 2007 is that the stated purpose of using a uniformly consistent screening, interview and selection process for all vacancies was to promote the idea that it was a democratic process and not one promoting politicizing and favoritism. This open process is one where people submit applications or council members nominate or submit nominations of applicants before the Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee meeting and current applications are submitted to the city clerk's office and included as documents made available to city officials, staff members and the public. The Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee would then be a forum where active discussion would take place openly regarding each prospective applicant in ways a bit more deep and meaningful than the following conversation.
Elected official A: Do you know this person or [insert entire name] or [insert first name]?
Elected official B: Yes.
Elected official B: Um, no.
Or
And a decision on who to interview is made accordingly, in a way that's fair to the parties who put the time to apply to serve on these participatory mechanisms.
The decision would be made on what's on the application and a good-sized pool should be selected for interviews based on how many positions are open. Then that list of applicants would be interviewed by the full city council and mayor, questions useful to the process would be asked and then the paper vote would be taken to pick the candidate or two that get the most votes while satisfying the charter requirements. That's a process accountable, fair and transparent. Unfortunately, that's not what is uniformly in place and it should be. Does it take more energy and time? Yes, but for the most part, the selection process in March every year does handle many of the appointments and selections. The extra time spent making the process worthwhile would better honor the city residents who embrace the possibilities which come with serving on the city's boards and commissions. If doing it this way makes elected officials irritable and even miserable, well, they get paid quite well to be in those emotional states if that's the choice they make for themselves.
However, that was true about half of the time. The only difference the other half of the time between how the CPRC's appointments were handled and those involving other boards and commissions outside "The Big Three" is that in the former case, at least interviews and public votes took place.
More information on the fatal officer-involved shooting in Hemet.
Not much more on the nonfatal officer-involved shooting that took place in Casa Blanca in Riverside several days ago. Sure enough, people think it's the same officer who was involved in another nonfatal shooting in 2004 outside Casa Blanca and a controversial incident inside of it. No word from the department on the identity of the involved officer or whether it plans to release it or not.
---Author Unknown
"The optimum committee has no members."
---Norman Ralph Augustine
“Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.”
---Dr. Seuss
The Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee is hosting its annual get-to-gether to perform the arduous task of "screening" people to be chosen as possible appointments to fill vacancies on the city's boards and commissions. However, the process is becoming less about "screening" for interviews by the full city council and more about turning over the citywide appointments to the mayor and the ward specific appointments which are intended to put the city in compliance with Measure GG are left to the mayor and the involved council member. With the exception of three boards and commissions or the "special" ones as they are called, this same process is used whether or not the terms involved are expired or not.
The current members of this committee include Mayor Ron Loveridge who chairs it and the Governmental Affairs Committee which is chaired by Councilman Frank Schiavone and includes both Councilman Rusty Bailey and Councilman Steve Adams among its members.
What's interesting is how little interviewing will be taking place, as the process even for filling brand new terms is becoming more and more akin to appointments being made by elected officials, a trend that's become more noticeable after the passage of Measure GG but even more than that, in the past year.
Some of the vacancies are ongoing which means that once they hit the 60 day mark, it's the job of the mayor to appoint whether they are ward specific seats or not. One of the major reasons for using this process for midterm resignations is to avoid having to continuously go through the regular screening and interviewing process for each position and to fill the vacancies as quickly as possible so that the board or commission can operate efficiently and effectively without too much of a break in continuity. So expediency has been the major reasoning behind the process of appointments of commissioners by elected officials more than any other reason.
But some vacancies were not dealt with for several months after commissioners resigned including three people who had served on the Human Relations Commission.
Consequently, some of the positions including those three are left to Loveridge to handle at the point of the year when terms officially begin and expire, yet even though the expediency factor is not as pronounced as it would be if he was faced with these decisions midterm (which in these cases, he was), he is utilizing the same process that he would have been if he had selected them in midterm.
However, that process involving midterm resignations is being carried over to fill vacancies on several of the city's boards and commissions that have resulted not from midterm resignations but from term expiration either by a commissioner "terming out" after two consecutive terms or completing one term and opting not to apply for reappointment. These include vacancies on the Airport Commission, the Human Relations Commission, the Commission on Disabilities, the Board of Library Trustees and the Metropolitan Museum Board. To fill these vacancies, the city council and mayor are opting out of a long-standing process of having the Mayor's Nomination and Screening Commission select applicants to be interviewed by the entire city council and mayor before all of them vote on the appointments.
It's not clear when and how the Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee which is entrusted with handling the appointment process of the city's boards and commissions and/or the city council changed its rules governing its screening and interviewing process that was once utilized for every board and commission. The meeting agendas for 2007 and 2006 don't show any publicly scheduled meetings to discuss the process that had been used by the committee let alone changing it. Admittingly, it's hard to know what the agenda was at its Feb. 22, 2006 meeting. If you click the link for that date here, this city council meeting agenda appears in lieu of any Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee meeting on that date.
The process being used this year does mirror one used at a meeting of this committee on Jan. 9, 2007 according to this minute record but in this case, most of the positions filled in the same matter had fewer or no applicants, particularly in the sixth and seventh wards. But what's interesting about this particular meeting is that this report submitted beforehand by City Clerk Colleen Nichols shows that for commissions such as the Human Relations Commission, the initial recommendation was to use the older process and select applicants for interview by the city council and a list of applicants was included in this report. However, as the minute record for that same meeting showed, this screening and interview process for the HRC and most the other boards and commissions was never actually carried out.
Meaning that the process entering into the meeting was different than the one that was there by its end. By meetings end, the task of selecting commissioners for the majority of the boards and commissions without conducting interviews was the one chosen by the members of the Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee. That's the process being used now.
Going back further in history yields few clues.
There's no online minute record for the screening and interviewing process in 2006 for the selection process. So likely, no such discussion took place.
Looking back at 2005, the minutes for the April 12 meeting show that this committee was set to interview applicants for openings on most of the city's boards and commissions having screened the applications during the meeting. That's the older process.
The Big Three and the others
Three of the city's boards and commissions are exempt from the newly expanded appointment process and they are the CPRC, the Planning Commission and the Board of Public Utilities. Those three bodies undergo the screening and interview process to fill all openings. Whether or not they benefit from this process will be discussed later.
But as for the rest of them, this is what will be happening this year. Below is a list of the commissions with vacancies. What kind they are, how the commissioners will be chosen and how many applicants are eligible or perhaps believed they were to be considered for positions that in reality, they have no real chance to be selected for.
What's significant about some of them is that the excuse for having the major and/or city council member of a given ward pick them is because the recruitment and selection pool is too small or nonexistent so the city officials are left with no other option than to do direct appointments. As you can see below, that's hardly ever the case in reality, certainly not in January 2007.
Airport Commission
Recommend the Mayor fill citywide vacancy from termed out.
Applicants eligible for citywide position: 26
Commission on Disabilities
Work with Ward Five Councilman to fill ward specific position (term expired March 2008)
Applicants eligible for ward specific position: 3
Cultural Heritage Board
Work with Ward Three and Ward Six council members to fill ward-specific positions (midterm departures)
Applicants eligible for Ward Three: 1
Applicants eligible for Ward Six: 0
Human Relations Commission
Request the mayor to fill five vacancies (two expiring, three ongoing)
Applicants eligible for vacancies: 63
Board of Library Trustees
Mayor work with Ward Four councilman to fill ward-specific vacancy (term expiration)
Applicants eligible for vacancy: 3
Metropolitan Museum Board
Request mayor fill two vacancies (one expiring, one citywide)
Applicants eligible for vacancies: 33
Parking, Traffic and Streets Commission
Request mayor to fill vacancy (ongoing)
Applicants eligible for vacancy: 30
As you can see, unlike was the case in 2007, only one body, the Cultural Board has one vacancy where no people have submitted applications to fill. For the rest of them, the range is from one to 63. Four of the city-wide boards have over 20 people who are interested enough in the process to have submitted applications. There is a pretty good list of applicants representing most of the wards and the oft-underrepresented wards are seeing more action than they have previously. A great deal of credit goes to the recruiting and advertisement efforts of City Clerk Colleen Nichols.
However, most of these people who went through the process presented to them have not only zero chances of getting picked by the Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee for an interview, but they probably have near zero chances of getting appointed at all.
Why?
Because unless they have a chance to have their applications screened for what they can bring to the process and have a chance to be interviewed which is especially beneficial in case they haven't had much contact or interaction with city officials, they have little chance, because without an interview process, it becomes all or mostly about name recognition. It becomes less about what you can bring to the process and your passion about serving the city in a voluntary capacity and more about who you know and more importantly, who knows you. So if filling out applications really worth the time spent doing so for the majority of even "qualified" individuals?
Okay, some say that means if you've got name recognition, you must be qualified, right? And if you don't, you haven't been in the "right" organizations, done the "right" community service or whatnot. But there are many talented people who *do* serve their communities and neighborhoods who don't hang out with city council members and the mayor. Should they be barred from having a chance for a fair process of selection?
"Paying one's dues" is another "qualification" that's unwritten that appears to come up especially for people who either move from one commission to the next or jump from one ship to the next. But these are boards and commissions open to city residents who volunteer their time, not business corporations where employees work their way up the corporate ladder or structural hierarchy. At least, you would think.
These things open up the city's boards and commissions to becoming more politicized, which is in part fallout from Measure GG as well as the actions of elected officials who see opportunities for shaping them and are taking them. That's unfortunate because it leaves a lot of passionate, talented people on the wayside who are interested in service more than politics. But it's the city's loss and it's because of the process it chooses to use that's exclusionary and not inclusive.
However, even with a seemingly more fair and open process for the "big three" boards and commissions, there isn't much difference in how politicized the boards and commissions have become.
Because even when you're applying to one of the three boards and commissions were interviews are actually conducted, there's not much difference in both selection processes. And if you have no chance of being interviewed at all, how well are your chances of being recognized by the mayor or city council members unless you've been in the right places? But does an interview always make the difference?
Look at the CPRC for example which appointed five individuals to fill both ward specific and citywide vacancies last year. Of those five, all of them were interviewed pursuant to the process utilized by the city council and mayor involving that particular commission. Of those five, only Peter Hubbard and Steve Simpson had applications which were screened at the meeting on Jan. 9, 2007. Hubbard had just termed off of the Board of Public Utilities and Simpson had once served on the planning commission. Prior experience on any city board and commission was practically mandated for serious consideration to serve on the CPRC, and in fact, two council members, Dom Betro and Ed Adkison said it was vital to pick candidates who had prior board and commission experience so that they "could hit the ground running" to face the challenges of the "current situation" involving the CPRC.
Say what? Show me that in writing! Where in the rule book does it say that a person has to have prior service on a board and commission to serve on a *certain* board or commission?
Now, the public has nothing to do with the "current situation" involving the CPRC. The city council including those two former members had more to do with it than any city resident who would apply for a board or commission like the CPRC with plenty of good qualities to bring to the table, actually believing they would have a serious chance for an interview. No where was it written on any application, brochure or pamphlet nor was it ever announced that prior board and commission experience was required to serve on the CPRC. So it's a bit disingenuous to add it as a requirement during the interview process, never mind it wasn't even listed as such during the application screening process, to make the final selections.
Maybe in a sense, people get addicted to the city's boards and commissions when it comes to serving on them. More and more, there are individuals who get picked for service on a second one after finishing a term or two on another one. That's if they can even wait until they've completed a term before jumping ship.
There's actually a guy on the CPRC who's main contribution to his interview was that he missed serving on a commission and he lamented not being able to park in the special parking places for commissioners. He actually received the most votes from elected officials to serve on that commission.
At the May 1, 2007 meeting to appoint a Ward Four and a Ward Six commissioner, both Linda Soubirous and Arthur Santore who would ultimately be appointed to those positions were among those selected for interview. At the Aug. 28, 2007 meeting, eventual commissioner Chani Beeman was included in the list of those interviewed for another citywide position. It was actually her second set of interviews because although she was not listed for interview at the Jan. 9 meeting, she was added to that list just before the candidates were interviewed for two citywide positions later filled by Hubbard and Simpson several weeks later.
In the Jan. 9 meeting, this report which lists all the recommendations and applicants from all seven wards for each board and commission, sure enough only Hubbard, Santore
and Simpson are included in the application list. Missing from the list are Beeman and Soubirous.
Those two names are also missing from a list of applicants included in this report from the May 1, 2007 meeting which is especially significant in Soubirous' case.
There's no report online available for the Aug. 28, 2007 meeting but then there was barely a meeting and if Loveridge hadn't been in attendance, there wouldn't have been much of a recognizable process either.
The names were missing in some cases because they were submitted by city council members either at a Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee meeting or just before the city council interview. Beeman's application was one she had filed when she first applied in 2000 and wasn't available at the Jan. 9 meeting or the interviews given several weeks later. Betro made a comment at the meeting that it got lost in the shuffle. In Soubirous' case, it's not clear whether or not an application was submitted or available to the public at all.
What's interesting about how the process worked involving the CPRC in 2007 is that the stated purpose of using a uniformly consistent screening, interview and selection process for all vacancies was to promote the idea that it was a democratic process and not one promoting politicizing and favoritism. This open process is one where people submit applications or council members nominate or submit nominations of applicants before the Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee meeting and current applications are submitted to the city clerk's office and included as documents made available to city officials, staff members and the public. The Mayor's Nomination and Screening Committee would then be a forum where active discussion would take place openly regarding each prospective applicant in ways a bit more deep and meaningful than the following conversation.
Elected official A: Do you know this person or [insert entire name] or [insert first name]?
Elected official B: Yes.
Elected official B: Um, no.
Or
Elected official A: Okay, what do you think about [insert name]?
Elected official B: We've already decided. Let's just do it.
And a decision on who to interview is made accordingly, in a way that's fair to the parties who put the time to apply to serve on these participatory mechanisms.
The decision would be made on what's on the application and a good-sized pool should be selected for interviews based on how many positions are open. Then that list of applicants would be interviewed by the full city council and mayor, questions useful to the process would be asked and then the paper vote would be taken to pick the candidate or two that get the most votes while satisfying the charter requirements. That's a process accountable, fair and transparent. Unfortunately, that's not what is uniformly in place and it should be. Does it take more energy and time? Yes, but for the most part, the selection process in March every year does handle many of the appointments and selections. The extra time spent making the process worthwhile would better honor the city residents who embrace the possibilities which come with serving on the city's boards and commissions. If doing it this way makes elected officials irritable and even miserable, well, they get paid quite well to be in those emotional states if that's the choice they make for themselves.
However, that was true about half of the time. The only difference the other half of the time between how the CPRC's appointments were handled and those involving other boards and commissions outside "The Big Three" is that in the former case, at least interviews and public votes took place.
More information on the fatal officer-involved shooting in Hemet.
Not much more on the nonfatal officer-involved shooting that took place in Casa Blanca in Riverside several days ago. Sure enough, people think it's the same officer who was involved in another nonfatal shooting in 2004 outside Casa Blanca and a controversial incident inside of it. No word from the department on the identity of the involved officer or whether it plans to release it or not.
Labels: City Hall 101, officer-involved shootings, public forums in all places
posted by Five Before Midnight | 2:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home