State of the City Council Meetings Address 2019

190205220327-17-sotu-2019-exlarge-169.jpg

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE–For the third year in a row, Michael Karlik appeared before a joint session of Congress for the greatest honor any person can imagine, other than meeting Cher: he delivered the State of the City Council Meetings address. The standing ovations were numerous. The viewership was huge. And almost no one requested a refund afterward. Below is a transcript and audio of the entire speech, sponsored by Dig Deep Research, which is also available on iTunesStitcher, and Player FM:

Madame Speaker, Madame Tussaud, Mesdames and Messieurs: because of the solemn duty conferred upon me by the Constitution, and because there is no one else out there crazy enough to do this, I am here tonight to remark upon the city council meetings of the world. And I want to assure all of you that despite what you may hear from the fake, failing, or–if they’re nice to me–the perfectly fine news media, the state of our city council meetings is…can you scroll the teleprompter please? Strong. [applause]

Tonight, I will share with you stories of city council tests and city council triumphs. Although the tests are a lot more fun, you know what I’m saying? You know what I’m saying? [laughter]

Sitting in the gallery next to the First Lady is the mayor of Lakewood, Colorado, Adam Paul. [applause] Okay, he’s my guest, so next time please wait until I give you permission to clap, capiche? Last year, the Lakewood council had a crisis on its hands. What has a long tail, beady eyes, and a reputation for causing bubonic plagues? Rats. The pigeons of the ground. I actually brought a couple here tonight in this cage and oh, the cage is empty. Uh, that’s not good.

All right, here’s what I’ll do. I’ll release the rattlesnakes also to catch them and–okay, I’m seeing everyone shake their head no, so let’s put a pin in that. Anyway, the Lakewood city council had to act fast to keep the rats from multiplying. Here is their story.

***

Thank you for your response, Mayor. Please clap. [applause] But city councils don’t just respond to problems. They sometimes create their own. And when the Independence, Missouri city council voted to fire people in the Power & Light department, accusations started flying. Agnes, could you roll my interview with Independence Mayor Eileen Weir?

***

Okay, quick update. We found the rats. [applause] Yes, finding rats in the United States Congress is like trying to find a needle in a needle stack, am I right? [laughter and applause] All right, good night, everybody. Goodnight–what’s that? I’m contractually obligated for another 15 minutes? Okay.

Why don’t we check in on Canada? Someone has to, for security. Earlier this year, I became aware of a bizarre story out of Kingston, Ontario. A couple of councillors protested the council proceedings not with their words, not with their votes, but with their feet. Agnes?

***

You know, I always struggle with how to end these things. On the one hand, I want to stay and talk to you forever. On the other hand, I just got a foosball table delivered at home. Choices, choices. You know, I have some thoughts about illegal immigration and abortion that I’d like to get out there. It is terrible that–wait a minute. Callaway?

Hillsboro, Oregon Mayor Steve Callaway?! [applause] I can’t believe they let you past security! Mostly because I told them not to. But folks, during his state of the city address in January, Mayor Callaway gave a very important shout out that I noticed right away.

Yeah, you can clap for that. You can clap for that. In fact, I once interviewed Hillsboro’s city manager, Michael Brown, and we discussed how Hillsboro’s state of the city addresses are always the greatest show on earth.

***

Thank you. God bless you. And god bless city council meetings.

Interview #124: Independence, MO Mayor Eileen Weir (with podcast)

This podcast interview is available on iTunesStitcherPlayer FM, and right here:

On the podcast, Mayor Eileen Weir shares the logic behind the Independence council’s brand new public comment policy. Plus, we walk through one controversial week in summer 2018 in which people’s jobs were on the line and the charter’s rules were under scrutiny.

Q: You announced a new public comment policy at the January 22, 2019 meeting that eliminates advance sign-ups. Why the change?

A: The policy that we had in the past was the agenda comes out on Thursday and by noon on Friday, you needed to contact the city clerk if you wanted to speak to the council. If the agenda was late getting out or people couldn’t meet that deadline, they were not allowed to speak to the council unless they contacted a council member and asked to speak. The council member could request at the council meeting that we suspend the rules of order to allow somebody to speak.

Q: Wow.

A: Most people when they come to speak want to talk about something that the council’s gonna be voting on that night. We always have our citizen comments at the end of the meeting. If somebody wanted to speak on something that we were voting on that night, we would also need to suspend the rules of order to change that around. It seemed like we were making a lot of exceptions all the time. We hope that it’s gonna encourage some more citizen participation in our council discussions.

Q: I want to take us to June 18, 2018. Midway through the meeting, Councilmember Curt Dougherty announces seemingly out of nowhere that he wants to eliminate six positions from the Independence Power & Light utility. What was going through your mind?

A: It was a surprise to me. I didn’t know that motion was going to be made. People were caught very much off guard. It is in the authority of the city council to amend the budget, which was what the motion was. It’s not within the authority of the city council to do any personnel changes.

Q: The council voted 4-3 to save $1 million by getting rid of seven people’s jobs. A week later, the director of Independence Power & Light came to the meeting and criticized that vote. Where is the line for you between standing up for your employees and respecting the chain of command?

A: I think it’s naive to think that a city employee can stand up and be representing himself or herself as a citizen. We don’t get to take off those hats when we assume positions as city employees or as elected officials. I’m the mayor of the city 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The director subsequently resigned from the position. He clearly had that in mind when he chose to come and speak as a “citizen” to the council without the knowledge of the city manager.

4b1b9a26-82ea-431d-8e89-3ab58e68661d(1)
Independence, MO Mayor Eileen Weir

Q: And you think it was a resignation? Not something to send a message to other department heads that “if you show up and question council’s motives, this will happen to you, too”?

A: No, I don’t think it was that. I think he was clearly dismayed, and understandably so. But I don’t think that a city employee or elected official can come to a council meeting and speak and say, “I’m not here in my professional capacity. I’m here as a citizen.”

Q: At that meeting, Councilmember Karen DeLuccie made a serious charge that the council violated the charter with its vote the previous week. Here is section 2.15:

Councilmembers shall not direct the appointment of any person to, or their removal from, office or employment by the city manager or by any other authority, or, except as provided in this charter, participate in any manner in the appointment or removal of officers and employees….

Your reaction is what?

A: I voted against the motion. I voted for the reversal of that motion. Clearly I feel it is outside the council’s authority to decide what the positions should be or who should hold them. That said, the motion was to amend the budget. It really did fall into a gray area.

Q: There’s actually more to that paragraph because it goes on to say:

If any councilmember violates any provision of this section, said councilmember shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not less than twenty-five (25) dollars nor more than five hundred (500) dollars. Any such conviction of any councilmember shall be cause for removal from office, and such councilmember shall be automatically removed by the said conviction….

Wow. Obviously, whoever wrote that was pretty damn serious about council members not hiring or firing people on their own. You can probably imagine scenarios from the past that might have prompted this severe reaction. Did your council’s vote a week prior trigger this provision?

A: It didn’t. No charges were ever brought forward regarding that. You’re correct that when the charter was established, it was following a period of a lot of patronage. The charter commission took it very seriously about the council’s authority over personnel matters.


Follow Mayor Eileen Weir on Twitter: @weirIndep4

Interview #123: Philadelphia, PA Councilman Derek Green (with podcast)

This podcast interview is available on iTunesStitcherPlayer FM, and right here:

Derek Green is a former city council employee and a current at-large Philadelphia councilman. We explore some of the quirky council traditions and the more heated public comments of the last year.

Q: I am shocked to learn that for Philadelphia city council members, attendance is not mandatory. People can vote on bills and resolutions despite having left a meeting. How do you feel about this practice?

A: That is something that’s been allowed over the years in order to record your vote on a matter. I think it gives an opportunity for someone to leave their vote based on the fact they reviewed what’s coming up for a vote and they support the issue and feel comfortable in letting their vote be reflected on the record.

Q: What if someone amends a bill midway through the meeting? Are absentees obligated to vote yes on that, even if it’s a terrible idea?

A: If they leave their vote as aye on all bills and resolutions, that is their vote. If they have a concern, that is something that more likely than not, they will not record their vote in that regard. I think once you become an elected official, your vote is one of your most important things. You need to be judicious in how you give your vote on matters.

Q: Because of the way the chamber is set up, council members have their desks facing away from the lectern for public comment. And I have seen instances where council members are either not in their seats or are facing away from the speaker. I have not personally seen you ignoring commenters, but in general, do you think this behavior is disrespectful? And if so, do I need to come in there and start confiscating cell phones?

A: Whenever we go to public comment, I always turn my chair toward the speaker. I think it’s important to listen to what people have to say. There are times when you are in a session, sometimes you may have a relative or family member contact you with an emergency. Or there can be times you’re trying to deal with some legislation and getting information. I don’t know what my colleagues may be looking at on their phones, so I can’t speak for them.

local_05-01-16e.jpg
Philadelphia, PA Councilman Derek Green

Q: I want to highlight one oddity of the Philadelphia council proceedings. To introduce legislation, the clerk physically unrolls printed legislation after a courier walks it from a council member’s desk to the front. I think I speak for everyone when I say: do you guys not have e-mail?

A: Yes, we do have e-mail. However, there are certain things that are done ritualistically. This is a practice that has occurred over the years. In years past, a resolution or a bill that was being circulated to other members of council used to be delivered to that office. Over time that moved from being done physically to being done electronically. But part of the dynamics of city council has been the process where the document that actually has the written language is presented from the sergeant at arms to the chief clerk.

Q: This past fall, you and other council members sponsored a resolution to name a street after former Mayor Wilson Goode. However, Mayor Goode had one major blemish on his record: in May 1985, a bomb was dropped during a police operation to remove a militant group S.W.A.T.-style. Several people were incredulous that a street would have Wilson Goode’s name on it. How extensively had you considered this reaction before it hit the council floor?

A: We have a number of prominent people in the history of this country that–we’re having this debate right now. Woodrow Wilson with the League of Nations, which became the United Nations, has done a lot to promote peace. But also, he had very strong racial views. These historical figures had perspectives, have taken measures and done things to demonstrate leadership, but have also done other things that causes concern.

Q: The difference between the Wilson Goode street naming and the others you mentioned is that the debate in the other cases is whether to remove names from public structures where the people have not lived up to our modern expectations of what morality and racial justice are. In your case, you were reverse engineering it. You were taking someone with an imperfect record and then elevating them.

A: You also have those who say we should not remove other people who have been elevated because the full context of what they’ve done has not been debated. You have some who are adamant in saying, “this is part of our history and we cannot remove our history.”


Follow Councilman Derek Green on Twitter: @CouncilmanDerek

Interview #121: Salt Lake City, UT Council Member Charlie Luke (with podcast)

This podcast interview is available on iTunesStitcherPlayer FM, and right here:

A historic council chamber. Mayor’s question time. And colorful, sometimes impassioned public commenters. These are the hallmarks of Salt Lake City’s council meetings that Council Member Charlie Luke walks us through.

Q: There is an aspect of your meetings that we don’t find in too many American councils: “questions to the mayor.” Why does this happen in your meetings?

A: Tradition. I don’t know when that practice started. It’s been rather hit and miss with mayors actually attending. A lot of times when they are there, we’re just happy that they are there. We’ve just been following the tradition.

Q: At the mayor’s question time of September 18, 2018, council members were upset that the mayor was not present to answer questions about the controversial Inland Port. Isn’t it unfair to say that the mayor doesn’t show up to answer questions when in fact your council oftentimes has nothing to ask her?

A: Absolutely not because most of our questions are going to be related to the items at hand. Especially when there is an issue where there is substantial council disagreement with the administration, there would have been questions for the mayor. That’s where a lot of the frustration was.

Q: So would it not be more realistic for the mayor to show up to the contentious issues, where maybe council members have given her a heads-up in advance that there will be questions, rather than expect her to come to every meeting just out of tradition and sit through silence while no one asks her anything?

A: We have roughly three formal meetings a month. In my opinion, it is not unreasonable for the mayor to attend those meetings. If we were having multiple meetings a week, I think your point would be valid. I don’t think it is asking too much for the mayor of the capital city of Utah to take an hour out of her agenda to sit through our meeting.

387631_158861697556245_975855060_n.jpg
Salt Lake City, UT Council Member Charlie Luke

Q: One year ago, your fellow council members–and you especially–were all set to fund 50 new police officers for Salt Lake City. Would you briefly explain why you wanted those extra cops while I go back to the car and run your license?

A: The response times for non-emergency crimes have been increasing steadily over the past few years. We knew that what we were tasking them [police] with was unsustainable. If we were going to get those response times down, the only way we could do it would be to add more officers.

Q: For half a year, there was an extraordinary amount of people–mostly young, but not always; mostly black and latino, but not always–who spoke up meeting after meeting against the police officers. Their message to you was that A.) more cops don’t mean better safety, B.) we and our communities actually don’t feel safe around police, and C.) you, the all-white city council, have a distorted experience with police that is not our reality. Your reaction to that is what?

A: Nationally, there have been issues with police and racial issues around the country. In the seven years I’ve been on council, we’ve worked closely with the police chief to better train our officers to deal with de-escalation. I’m not discounting what any of them have said. My life experience as a middle-aged white male is much, much different from people of color, women, and others. I’m not ever going to discount what they’re saying. But I am going to go off of numbers and what we’re looking for as a city.

Q: I don’t think that any of the commenters ever said explicitly that this increase in officers was emblematic of racism or white supremacy. But the message clearly was, “the city uses the police to intimidate and in some cases kill us.” I know that you strongly support the additional officers, but can you think of anything that would have to happen with the police in Salt Lake City for you to believe the argument they were making?

A: It’s not that I don’t believe the argument. I do believe that there is legitimate fear and concern. All I can do is try to improve the situation. I can’t go back and fix things that have historically happened. Since we do have to have law enforcement, let’s make them as best-trained as they can possibly be.


Follow Council Member Charlie Luke on Twitter: @CharlieLukeSLC

Interview #120: Clawson, MI Councilmember Susan Moffitt (with podcast)

This podcast interview is available on iTunesStitcherPlayer FM, and right here:

Susan Moffitt experienced an eventful first year on council in which chickens took center stage! She discusses how people’s backyard pets made the news and how the city is casual in some ways about its procedures.

Q: There is a majorly important subject that exploded in your council’s face last year. I’m talking about backyard chickens. Walk me through how Clawson pecked its way into the spotlight on the chicken issue.

A: Historically, although the city had ordinances that prevented having backyard chickens, the practice was sort of allowed. Citizens told stories of neighbors reporting them and the ordinance enforcer going, “yeah, it’s okay that we have chickens.” Someone in the city had a rooster and that led to some complaints. There was a directive to take care of the rooster, which was misinterpreted to mean, “let’s start enforcing the chicken ordinance.” Chickens used to be a barnyard animal. Now they’re kind of pets. So when letters went out saying you’ve got 90 days to get rid of your chicken, they interpreted it as: “you have 90 days to get rid of your pet.”

Q: Were you angry that you had to resolve a crisis that seemed to be created by previous councils and current city employees deciding to have zero tolerance all of a sudden?

A: I don’t think angry is the right word. Never should our citizens be blindsided; but having had that happen, we had a bunch of citizens engaged. It was great that so many people came out.

Q: You seemed to be very pro-chicken from the start. Other council members over the course of multiple meetings said, “well, at first I thought no on the chickens, but now I’m a maybe, and actually now I’m a yes.” Why do you think they ended up joining you? Did it have anything to do with the fact that people showing up to defend their chickens were normal people who looked and sounded like you all and used their chickens for companionship in a very relatable way?

A: I think that had a lot to do with it. People had those personal connections. Ninety-five percent of the people want chickens and five percent don’t want the chickens. The people that don’t want it, they don’t want it on principle. We’ve been able to refute all of their arguments. If you don’t want chickens, don’t have them. But you can’t reach into your neighbor’s yard and decide whether they’re gonna have them.

MoffittHeadShot.jpg
Clawson, MI Councilmember Susan Moffitt

Q: I’m sure you recall your recent meeting of January 2 when Councilmember Paula Millan objected to a vote to confirm the mayor’s appointees because the charter said the council was supposed to receive their resumes–and you did not receive them. How blindsided did you feel?

A: Not only was I blindsided, but the mayor was blindsided. What I don’t understand is if she felt she should have received something prior to the meeting, why she waited until five minutes before the meeting started to request it.

Q: How worried do you get about the city’s image and the confidence people have in the government when one council member waltzes in, pulls out their phone, and reads the section of the charter that you all are not following?

A: That’s one piece in all of the activities that we do. If they’re upset about it, they have the opportunity to talk to us. There’s a lot of pieces of our charter that are old or outdated. I always have concerns about following a law for the law’s sake. One of the things about our city that’s unique is that we have a sense of moving forward without being overly concerned about the laws on a regular basis–evidenced by the fact that we had a chicken ordinance that was prohibiting chickens and it wasn’t enforced for years and years. That’s how Clawson has been governed for a long time for good or for ill. The citizens seem to not be upset by those kinds of things.


Follow Councilmember Susan Moffitt on Twitter: @Moffitt4Clawson

Interview #119: Kingston, ON Councillor Mary Rita Holland (with podcast)

This podcast interview is available on iTunesStitcherPlayer FM, and right here:

Mary Rita Holland is in her second term as Kingston District 7 councillor and she describes the training that new councillors just received, accommodations for children in the meetings, and the choice she regrets from her first term.

Q: The Kingston city council recently started a new four-year term and one of your brand-new councillors, Robert Kiley, wrote in the Kingstonist, “Speaking of meetings, that’s how we finished our orientation: in a mock meeting, with funny motions, like establishing a public kale bar, which articulated step by step what happens around the Horseshoe.” Were you at that practice council meeting?

A: I was. We focused on introducing some new food options, including real dairy products, at our council meetings. Currently we use powdered coffee whitener for members of the public and for staff and councillors. One of the motions for debate was whether we should move toward real dairy.

Q: What was the final outcome of that debate?

A: We voted in favor of real dairy products in our council meetings and I think we also voted in favor of the recommendation for a kale quinoa bar. That was a little less contentious. We do want to see more people come to our meetings, so the better quality the coffee and milk, hopefully the better the attendance!

Q: On April 7, 2015, you proposed having childcare for certain public meetings. What is this revolutionary, socialist utopian idea of yours?

A: I am a single parent, but I was aware of the fact that I was probably the first member of council in a situation like this–where if our meetings went really late and I had a babysitter, that was a problem for me. So it seems like there are a number of barriers for younger members of the public to participate in our democracy. I thought by introducing childcare at meetings, it might mean that for those families who wanted to get out and participate, they could do that and they could feel very comforted that their children were having a good time in the room next-door.

44181459_2047520235309428_2015158196691271680_n
Kingston, ON Councillor Mary Rita Holland

Q: I want to take the listeners to June 13, 2017. This was the start of what ended up being a 10-hour meeting over two days about a “third crossing”–a third bridge over the Cataraqui River. Right up top, Councillor Peter Stroud attempted to curtail that by moving that the staff presentations get cut so the question time could start sooner. The council defeated that idea. I understand that Councillor Stroud stepped out. Would you describe to me what you recall?

A: He stepped out of the room. I stepped out at the same time, although that was not coordinated in advance. But we had the same rationale for getting rid of that briefing: we’d already heard the information more than once. We thought the time would be better spent hearing from the public. In a bit of an act of protest, we both left the council chamber.

Q: What did you do?

A: I found Councillor Stroud standing at the front entryway. The two of us stood there at the door and complained a bit about the motion losing. We were frustrated with how the entire vote and decision had been proceeding all along. We were talking about it in the entryway. That didn’t seem wise and we don’t really have a private room for our own discussions at city hall. He said, maybe we should go across the street to the pub and chat a bit more.

Q: Did anyone come up to you while you were in the pub and say, “hey, wait. There’s a council meeting and you’re councillors, so…what?!”

A: No. Of course I had it in the back of my mind that it wasn’t wise to be leaving the building, but I guess given the fact that I knew I had to go back to that meeting and be composed, I thought it made a bit of sense to go and calm myself down a bit. It turns out there were members of the media in the pub. When I went back to my seat in the council chamber, there was a tweet going around about the fact that we had left.

Q: Reflecting on that tweet, do you think that take of “walking out on the job” was an accurate one?

A: Yeah, and I’m laughing about it a little bit today but that turned out to be a very difficult time. I care a lot about public engagement and the public trust and I want people to not be cynical. When I realized that this would make people cynical about politics, that it was a bigger deal than getting out for a breath of air, I felt really awful about it. I should have stayed.


Follow Councillor Mary Rita Holland on Twitter: @MaryRitaHolland

Month in Review: December 2018

In the final month of 2018, we were fortunate enough to experience some of the most thrilling, most breathtaking council meetings of the year.

It was in December that we learned about the city council that was abruptly slashed in half by a higher power.

And it was in December when we heard from a city commissioner who essentially sat through a Trump rally and received heavy criticism.

Naturally, it was also difficult to escape the holiday cheer–like the city council that honored the best home decorations of Christmas 2018.

To look under the tree and see which December council meetings we wrapped for you, peek at the December Month in Review. (And check your stocking for the podcast.)

And if you are pondering why these people are dressed so festively, educate yourself by clicking here:

Screen Shot 2018-12-19 at 5.34.38 PM