Advisory boards . . . Our view: Councilors needs to treat selection process better
The dysfunction of the Glencoe City Council has been a work in progress. At times, councilors work together for a common goal – providing citizens the best possible array of services at a reasonable cost many feel is never low enough.
But the city council’s recent divide over Kevin Dietz’s application to fill an open position on the park board in addition to his current service on the planning commission is a step into the muck that should have some council members examining what they are really trying to accomplish. This is not an example of collaboration.
Instead, the council is divided over an issue that could have been handled so much better.
The divide results in the rare use of a mayoral veto, one Councilor Milan Alexander said over the weekend he planned to challenge because of a detail in the city charter. Alexander’s resolution limiting citizen-appointed participation to one advisory board commission left Mayor Randy Wilson little choice.
Councilors typically vote on resolutions they have seen and reviewed. Councilor Alexander’s proposed resolution at the Dec. 2 city council meeting wasn’t included in the packet of information the council and public can review before the meeting. He brought it to city hall after the meeting for formal drafting, and later changed the text. How can that be? A legitimate resolution can’t be changed after the council approved it.
And yet, councilors Allen Robeck and Cory Neid wasted little time at the Dec. 2 meeting supporting a resolution they had theoretically not even seen, or supposedly discussed. What is even more concerning is Alexander, Robeck and Neid rejected the counsel of the city attorney on the potential legality of his resolution.
City Attorney Mark Ostlund offered his opinion that passing an ordinance limiting citizen participation on city council-appointed boards and commissions was legally a better avenue than a resolution, certainly a resolution Alexander was the only one to see.
And if all that is not enough, Alexander stated he has been out actively recruiting potential candidates for spots on the park board and other boards and advisory commissions. There are a handful of board and commission members who will be up for re-appointment Jan. 1. Alexander wants to end the apparent habit of rubber-stamping reappointments.
There’s nothing wrong with informing citizens of the opportunity to serve on an advisory board or commission. But since people tend to gravitate toward like-minded others, recruiting handpicked members is at least disingenuous. Why bother having advisory boards if they are little more than bo-bos of whichever council member recruits the most likeminded people?
The council should also be careful of rejecting the opinions of its advisory boards. When the chairman of the park board came to the council Dec. 2 and presented three good reasons for appointing Dietz, councilors Alexander, Robeck and Neid, the trio dismissed the board’s support for Dietz. The council must be cautious how it treats the recommendations of its appointed advisory boards and commissions. While the council is within its right to disagree with a recommendation, rejecting the strong opinion of how it values the service of its appointees. That’s why talking through issues is so important.
If the city council is as ideologically split, as it currently appears to be on key issues, three council members could potentially stack the city’s key advisory boards. That’s not a stretch when you consider how easy it was for councilors to potentially vote in concert as Alexander, Robeck and Neid demonstrated Dec. 2.
-jm
