Controversy Over Partisan City Manager Piece On City Web Site

Occasionally you will hear me reference "email chatter". What happens is that various people appear on email distribution lists--some who are concerned about issues, some who like to hear themselves speak, and some who are elected and feel they need to provide inside information. Many issues of the day are debated over email chatter. Typically these emails are only good for clogging in-boxes and making people think that I'm important because my blackberry goes off all the time. But, at their best, these email exchanges actually produce enough annoyance to prompt action by a government official.

The other day, somebody involved in this email ring noticed a piece on the city Web Site by Alderwoman Finlayson defending the strong-mayor philosophy and condemning the city manager philosophy. "Facts" from supporters of the city manager were allegedly misrepresented, and the supporters (who are organized and have financial resources) were pissed. The city Web Site, they argued, should be for facts, and a response to this political trick was needed.

The next 20 emails or so were a combination of "this is only the beginning from this bunch" and "here's what you should do about the problem". Some pointed out that Finlayson was lying. Others said a pro-city-manager piece should be put on the web site. Others excused themselves, opting to pour and consume a Canadian Whisky with ice.

Yesterday's emails started out decrying the lack of democracy. Some pointed out the city web site is not supposed to be a giant press release. Others suggested the matter should go to the attorney general for ruling. I poured another glass of whisky.

I then missed some of the propaganda, because I was bidding for an item on Ebay, which I lost. Minor disappointment. When I returned to neglecting work and following emails, Alderman Arnett had agreed to post an opposition piece on the city web site. Unbelievably, somebody found a web site policy from De Pere, Wisconsin, and Alderman Cordle promised to introduce legislation proposing the city adopt the "De Pere model"! I immediately predicted an increase in worldwide whisky demand.

Greg Stiverson ascertained that the post on the web site was in violation of the following city web site policy:

The city maintains the website as a vehicle to communicate information to
citizens and visitors. The website is not maintained as a public forum for
debate of public policy issues.

So, now the piece has been moved off the city web site and onto the city Let's Talk "blog". Alderman Cordle still plans to draft legislation. Aren't you glad you read this post?

Here is the Let's Talk blog post and Finlayson's dubious presentation.

Finlayson Makes Mindless Comment, Prompts Competition In Ward 4**

**The Second Part of this post's title is actually not true, but I've been told that there's such thing as a self-fulfilling prophecy, and I'm out to test that hypothesis.

So, people know about the infamous parking fee increase that threatens to stifle any momentum that downtown businesses may have. In response to the concerns of businesses, the Economic Matters committee apparently held a hearing to discuss what they could do about the "problem". (Problem is in quotation marks because the city council really wants to do this, and only considers it a 'problem' because people are making complaints, which they have to hear.) At this hearing, Ward 4 Alderman Sheila Finlayson took the opportunity to say the most unfortunate comment of 2009:

"One mistake I think is we didn't get everybody to the table," said Alderwoman
Sheila Finlayson, D-Ward 4. "We really didn't take into consideration the
impact (the fee increases) had on residents."

My goodness.

"I sold the business but one mistake I think I made was not telling my boss".

"I got a divorce but one mistake I think I made was not bringing my wife to the table. I really didn't take into consideration that she was part of the marriage".

"I write a blog claiming to be an economics savant but I really don't take into consideration the fact I was denied entrance into the University of Maryland PhD program in economics."

Unbelievable.

In typical city style, the Finance Committee wanted to glom on at the last minute, and tried to piggyback on the meeting that the E.M. committee was already having. Problem: even the guy who pays the bills didn't know about it:

Aldermen nearly broke state open-meetings rules last night as they debated
the fee increases.

The Finance Committee chairman, Alderwoman Classie Hoyle, D-Ward 3,
tried to schedule a joint meeting with the Economic Matters Committee last
night. City officials posted a notice about the Finance Committee's meeting on
the city Web site Sunday night.

State rules require elected officials to post public notice about pending
meeting at least 24 hours before the meeting is to convene.

Finance Director Tim Elliott, who returned from New York yesterday,
said he did not know of the Finance Committee meeting until yesterday morning.
He cautioned Hoyle that the Finance Committee would not be able to take any
action if members met last night.

Hoyle "can call a meeting if they want," he said. "They just can't make
any formal recommendation to the committee."

Two of the three members of the Finance Committee were unable to attend
the hearing anyway.

At first I thought that last sentence meant they had a meeting with only 1 person attending, but then I just figured that Hoyle sat in on the Economic Matters meeting. Maybe this time they can consider the residents.