Commission selection process up for debate
The city council considered changes to the commission selection process on June 5. The agenda packet, pp. 116- 124 has the commission selection staff report and various options. City Manager Cathy Capriola continues to impress with her thorough staff reports. The council deserves credit for choosing her.
Alignment on city policy
As far as policy issues and alignment with city policy, I suggest that the council not assume it is always desirable to have commissioners be aligned, or in agreement with whatever current city policies are.
Why? You don’t want all yes men and yes women. All policy evolves, and has multiple possible perspectives, some of which may turn out to be more adaptive than others. If a bias towards groupthink is encouraged, and the groupthink turns out to be maladaptive, then public policy has taken an inward turn towards conformity over diversity.
Policy areas where diversity of opinion would be good: tourism, sustainability, housing, planning etc. Policy tensions will be resolved by a council majority vote. Members might see the value of a diverse opinion, rather than for alignment conformity, or vice versa. As elected representatives, the council gets to decide.
Suggestion: build some fail-safes in against blind conformity. Good ideas can come from diverse ground. Views of city success can differ. When there is an obviously sharp and smart person, they might be a good commission choice, even if their political persuasion does not match those of council members.
Public comment on applicants
If the council choses Option Two, (see packet) the social pressure of possible public comment will play a role in sorting who may or may not apply. Why? A public meeting is an opportunity for lobbying by various interested parties. There is no reason to think that the First Street East hotel group, for example, will not continue to lobby for planning commissioners they feel are sympathetic. These guys have millions of dollars riding on possible votes, they want an “objective” vote! The public in general will lobby for and against certain candidates based on their perceived biases about the nature of housing, development, the UGB, town character etc. This is all Machiavelli 101; it’s about control of the town’s desired future.
Issues of bias, and objectivity in planning commissioner selection have come up: how to choose, and/or continue a commissioner, based on some set of fair criteria? Changing this commission selection process grew out of multiple accusations of bias, some of which simply amounted to the pot calling the kettle black.
Given that most people have political values, and that public figures routinely vote in ways congruent with their values, and that representing values is perhaps a poltiician’s main job, it is unreasonable to assume that this dimension will not be closely attended to by all parties. Why? Because getting a majority vote in place determines the direction the city may take on issues. These issues may have aesthetic, historical, ideological, economic, or other dimensions, based on a party’s particular (biased) interests.
The assertion that somehow commission candidates can and will be objectively, and neutrally qualified and selected, just does not conform to human experience. With seriously loaded planning issues on the city docket, and with some current planning commissioners already displaying political biases, this political, power and control dimension will be hard to somehow sidestep just by getting a new selection process. The exisiting mayor-only selection process already allows for checks and balances, and for the council to veto a choice; this has been done, for both Cook and Hundley.
If all parties are inherently biased, the question then becomes how to get a balance of biases on commissions so that all community interests are fairly represented?
If the full council votes on candidates, this just makes a potential disputed political call a matter of a three to two vote versus the current system. Option two votes will just show the criteria the full council uses to make their votes, and if those criteria appear political, or favoring any one interest, you can bet the public will notice.
Upshot: changing the commission selection process will not magically eliminate the potential for bias, it will just spread that potential to the full council and make it transparent in a public meeting. The public will see where each council member stands, and what jockeyng there may be for positions and interests.
Commissions training
This is a good idea. I also suggest council member training, specifically on how to focus on, research, and speak about issues; and how to make a strong argument. For example, basic college-level topical writing and public speaking calls for a thesis, and the presenting of evidence, and a conclusion to back up that thesis. This is a clear and professional way to engage multiple issues.
Personal identity statements are weak arguments. Anecdotal evidence is weak. Feelings are not evidence. How long somebody lived in Sonoma, or did this or that, does not address any specific issue. Third-partying based on undisclosed e-mails or unverified comments, is not an issues-based argument.
Rhetoric gives techniques on how to be persuasive and win a debate, but these techniques are not necessarily strong, evidence-based arguments. For example, Ted Cruz is a good debater, but his policy positions are extremely biased, and he “wins” by being mean and nasty. Rhetoric allows for attacking the man and not the issue or argument. These kinds of weak arguments are clear to see.
Council members, like all people, arrive at decisions in different ways. Council members say they want the facts, but how can there be one, two, three different sets of facts? This is where coherent and cogent argument comes in. It is not enough to say such and such is a fact without explaining why, in accordance with what thesis and assumption?
Deciding many items and issues comes down to making a value judgment. I suggest the council get some training on one, how to construct a strong, evidence-based argument, and two, how to be more explicit about how values predetermine and align what the potential facts are. For example, disclosing bias up front is a good, transparent move. With this sort of training, the council will be able to more effectively explain to the public the basis for their decisions.
Training on self reflection of values, and in how to make a reasoned argument, would benefit the public and help to clearly define what the issues really are.
No comments:
Post a Comment