Power shift at PG City Hall?
Thursday, July 11, 2013 @ 3:46 AM
By Peter Ewart
No doubt about it – power appears to be shifting at Prince George City Hall. Mayor Shari Green and recently-hired City Manager Beth James seem to have formed an alliance that could result in more power in their hands at the expense of City Council and voters at large.
Some examples of this concentration of power and apparent bypassing of Council:
In June, Beth James went ahead and submitted a report to Council regarding a tax exemption request for the PG Global Logistics Park even though she had not been directed to by Council. As 250 News reported, “some councillors were taken aback” at this digression from usual practice by the City Manager. Indeed, Councillor Lyn Hall commented that he felt he was being “boxed in” by this action.
Then there was City Council’s Special Meeting on July 8 to discuss the Core Services Review Implementation Plan, a report spearheaded by City Manager Beth James and the city executive with the consent of Mayor Green. This report elbowed aside the Core Services Review Report put together by KPMG at the end of last year.
It also elbowed aside Council’s Select Committee on a Core Services Review and the deliberative process that was in place. The Select Committee was originally “tasked with examining the core review and bringing suggestions to the Committee for the Whole for discussion, then to Council for final decision.” But that didn’t happen this time. Beth James and Mayor Green had other ideas, which apparently did not include keeping Everitt and other councillors in the loop. Like everyone else in the city, Everitt and the other councillors only got to see the report the Wednesday before the Special Meeting. “I find it extremely troubling that the [Select Committee on Core Services Review] that was so important to begin with, has been tossed aside,” said Everitt.
In June, another controversy came to a head again that illustrates the power struggles that are going on at City Hall. At a June 24th Council meeting, Councillor Brian Skakun attempted to get information on what had been paid to certain service suppliers by the City administration. The Mayor was adamant in refusing to allow this, claiming that she didn’t want to know what these suppliers do for the city, and that the administration should not be required to provide more detail.
There is an old saying – knowledge is power. Having another set of eyes on supplier information diminishes the power of the city administration, and subjects its decisions to closer scrutiny. Once again, the mayor allied herself with unelected top city officials against an elected councillor.
One of the most curious things about the Core Services Review Implementation Plan spearheaded by the City Manager was the inclusion of a Code of Conduct for PG city councillors. Why on earth was it included with the Plan? Fortunately, Council members were able to shift discussion on this document to another meeting. But, on reflection, there is something strange about unelected officials generating a Code of Conduct to be applied to elected representatives, give these representatives two business days to study it, and then expect them to approve it.
Shouldn’t there be a different order here? In a democracy, if sovereign power is claimed to flow from the people, shouldn’t citizens have input into a Code of Conduct for their elected representatives? Shouldn’t the representatives themselves first have some input? Only then, on the basis of this input, does it follow that unelected state officials should be tasked with drafting a Code. To do otherwise is to put the cart before the horse, the executive before the legislative, unelected officials before the elected, and the state before the people.
Not surprisingly, given that the Code of Conduct for councillors was drafted by unelected administrators, there appears to be a lot of language protecting and enshrining the power of these top administrators. For example, although the proposed Code acknowledges that “Council determines the policies of the City with the advice, information and analysis provided by the City Staff and Council committees,” it sternly warns that Councillors “therefore shall not interfere with the administrative functions of the City or with the professional duties of City staff, nor shall they impair the ability of staff to implement Council policy decisions.”
Furthermore, identifying clearly where the power lies in the city administration, the Code states that questions by Councillors to city staff and/or requests for additional background information should be directed only to the City Manager” and that any Councillor request “for a meeting with staff, including a phone conversation, must be directed to the City Manager.” Thus, it appears that, for elected city councillors, all roads must go through Beth James. Shades of Stephen Harper!
Why does Mayor Green appear to be spurring on this increasing power and sway of the unelected city manager? Indeed, in Council meetings, the Mayor as chair, appears to give much more leeway to this particular city manager when this manager wants to insert herself into Council discussions.
Does it have to do with the fact that Mayor Green is more than halfway through her term in office having failed to implement many of her election promises? In fact, she has suffered some major defeats, including the River Road Dike AAP, the Pine Valley Golf Course sell-off, the failure so far to contract out certain city services, and so on. In the process, she has managed to anger broad sections of the community, the latest being downtown businesses over parking rate increases.
Or does it have to do with the fact that an opposition block is gradually forming on City Council?
In either case, Mayor Green needs some clear wins to have any chance of being successful in the next municipal election. Perhaps she hopes an alliance with a City Manager who has increased powers will provide that opportunity, and connected to this, a sidelining of opposition members on Council.
In the coming months, Prince George residents (and even some councillors) should not be surprised to see some major privatizations, contracting out, or reduction in services sprung on them. Likewise, Mayor Green and the City Manager should not be surprised to see further major opposition developing, both in the community and on Council.
Peter Ewart is a columnist and writer based in Prince George, British Columbia. He can be reached at: peter.ewart@shaw.ca
Comments
I think the solution is easy. Council should start rejecting every single motion linked to the Mayor and/or those people within her inner circle, until such time as more transparency is seen.
Call it the PG filibuster. They could get away with this for months and there would be little to no impact on the day to day operations of the city. I mean throw EVERYTHING back in her face until she either resigns, or changes her approach, preferably the former.
Council has to grow a spine if they ever want this to end.
This is a ridiculous article. Council hires the city manager, they can remove them or discipline them if they see fit. If Council doesn’t like the behaviour of the city manager, they can change it.
Knowledge can be power, presuming the viewer of the information understands it.
Derek Bates was still city manager when I first heard of giving the land around the airport logistics park some form of tax holiday by non other than working class hero Brian Skakun.
September 26,2012 Free Press
“An adjusted tax incentive program around the airport might spur development in that area according to Prince George city Coun. Brian Skakun”
…”He added there are a number of variations as to what city council is willing to do as far as tax exemption goes”
Ms. James may overstep her bounds a time or two as she settles into her new role but it is nice to see someone with a bit of backbone in that corner office that will not be afraid to ruffle a few feathers among the department heads as it is sorely needed and long overdue.
While the authorâs view is a plausible one, I am seeing a different view.
First of all, a Mayor and City Manger must work together. It is the way things are done in any well working City as well as companies with Boards of Directors. When the two do not see eye to eye, one will dominate, sometimes in a perpetual power struggle which can get bad enough as to harm the organization. We have to remember that in the final analysis it is the Council, not the Mayor that gets to evaluate the Manager and fire her if it so.
I see this more as a City Manager who understands what her responsibility is. A good City Manager does not wait for permission to study what she is in charge of. She does not need that permission. She also does not need permission from Council to bring items to Council. Agendas are made up by the Manager in consultation with the Mayor. That is the way it is supposed to work.
What I saw at the meeting where Skakun asked for clarification was that neither Soltis nor Green were willing to identify the work which one of the companies was doing (Mosquito Control). All three should have known that since it was one of the companies which were brought forward in the previous request by Skakun. As I watched that meeting, I felt that the City Manager was being left out of the loop since Green was asking individual senior Managers to report. Not necessarily a bad sign if that is the culture since everyone is sitting there. However, the Manager eventually interjected (appeared to me that she had had enough of this stupid back and forth of who can piss further), turned on her mike and identified the companyâs work for the City. She was certainly not party to hiding information if it is available. In fact, if there is any undermining that went on, it was undermining Soltisâ digging in of heels.
When looking at the final recorded and published meetings of the select committee it appear to have died a natural death at the beginning of 2013. This was not an in camera committee. It was accessible to anyone who wanted to attend. Since the City Manager was not a member of the committee, it could actually be viewed as a micro managing committee.
http://princegeorge.ca/cityhall/committees/coreservicesreview/pages/default.aspx
When the City Manager came, she relatively quickly took charge, is what I see. Whether in close consultation with Green or not, is not readily visible to an outsider. However, she had to identify on several occasions why there appeared to be repeated items in the document brought forward. It was simply the full checklist of items which did not appear to have had final documented resolution in a single, comprehensive document.
In my mind, there was one major flaw in that – that it was not clearly articulated to outsider, including the media, which was wondering what this was all about and ended up reaching some unwarranted conclusions before the meeting.
So Everitt is quoted as saying that he finds it extremely troubling that the committee that was so important to begin with, has been tossed aside.â
Yes, it dwindled off at the end if the records on the web site are accurate and that there were no further meetings held. If there were others, that simply shows the normal lax attitude of putting minutes on web pages in a timely matter. THAT needs to be fixed for ALL committees of Council!!
The committee did its work while KPMG was active. When they left, the document should have been turned over to the City Manager to implement, including decision making. The decision making does not need a subset of the Council to make recommendation, it should go to the entire Council. It is an important document and we need to hear everyoneâs input without recommendation coming from a small, elite group.
The code of conduct. IT WAS HIGH TIME THAT THE COUNCIL HAD ONE!! Virtually everyone else has one. Whether it was suggested to James by Green, or whether it was the other way around, we do not know. But I can very well see James reporting to Green what some of the shortcomings were in process from her first look at the environment and culture in which she finds herself. She is starting to clean house a bit, hopefully.
While it will be Councilâs document, Administration is typically involved to research what other cities are doing. Even if Council had initiated it, which I doubt they ever would have, they would end up asking Admin to bring forward a draft document for their consideration.
I doubt that the document was not seen by Green first. We do not know what her reaction was. We just know it ended up at Council without very much background and very much suggested direction of next steps. It was not a very diplomatic way of presenting it and it shows some naïveté on the part of James, as well as Green if she indeed did see it before it went on the agenda.
A City Manager must take initiative. That was the problem with Bates. That was not the problem with Paul, and Jeffries. They knew what they had to do as a City Manager and they did it well. Both ended up as tough acts to follow. Will James be one of them??
“One of the most curious things about the Core Services Review Implementation Plan spearheaded by the City Manager was the inclusion of a Code of Conduct for PG city councillors. Why on earth was it included with the Plan”
Where is the boogeyman, eh??? Must be one somewhere.
Item 3.11, page 13 of the Agenda under summary of recommendations – Council Code of Conduct
That Council adopt the Council and Committee Code of Conduct Policy.
For those who read such matters, or research a single item such as this through the document, they would find that James has provided a nice projected implementation timetable through to the year 2016.
For item 3.11, the implementation is W3 and Q4 of 2013. So, Council has been given a suggested timetable of 5+ months to discuss, debate, have tantrums, direct James ask for revisions, etc. before adopting a code by December.
Time is money. Get on with it.
In the meantime look up a few others regarding how to work with staff rather than flowing everything through James.
Kitchener might be more amenable. It would certainly be for me if I were a Councillor.
http://www.kitchener.ca/en/insidecityhall/resources/CodeOfConduct.Pdf
In the true spirit of adopt, adapt, develop James provided Council with an adaptation of North Van’s Code of Conduct.
http://www.dnv.org/article.asp?c=541
Sort of a cut and paste …. LOL
Interesting to compare the two documents and identify what she has added.
Primarily more about confidentiality … I find that appropriate …
And having all questions to staff directed through her ….. very interesting, eh?!!
A definite bottleneck and appears to prevent Councillors from expressing interest in how things work and getting things done more quickly if they are small items. THAT would include the Mayor, the way I read it.
“Questions of City staff and/or requests for additional background information should be directed only to the City Manager. The City Manager shall be responsible for distributing such requests to staff for follow-up. Responses to such requests shall be copied to all Council members (if originating from a Council member), to relevant committee members (if originating from a committee member), to the City Manager, and to affected department directors. Any member request for a meeting with staff, including a phone conversation, must be directed to the City Manager.â
If that does not get changed to something like Kitchener has, then we are in trouble.
Indication from Councillors at the last meeting is that they will not accept it as written.
The requirement that all requests for information go through the City Manager is completely unacceptable. At best, it will add to the City Manager’s already considerable work load and slow down responses. At worst, it will make it impossible for Council members to obtain information that the senior administration does not want them to have and to check up on discrepancies between nominal policy and what is actually being done or what staff at lower levels think the policy is. It is reasonable to limit the ability of Council members to request action by staff directly as this can lead to all sorts of problems of micromanagement, but this should not apply to requests for information.
Comments for this article are closed.