For several months, questions surrounding the relationship of the developers of the former Weyerhaeuser property and City Hall have brought additional focus on the need to ensure open and transparent city government. Six years ago Federal Way changed its form of government from professional manager-city council to the more political, directly-elected strong mayor system. We are not a small town, we have almost 100,000 diverse residents, and the small town feel of Mayberry no longer exists. Not everyone is a political insider and our evolution has brought new questions about old procedures: Do appearances matter?
When residents serve as unpaid volunteers on city advisory boards, they fill several necessary roles. As lay advisers they provide helpful and unbiased community feedback to full time professional city staff, that work in city departments, unfettered by internal relationships or politics that are a part of any workplace, but more so in a political environment such as City Hall.
One of the most important citizen advisory boards is the city Planning Commission as they provide a check and balance, rather than a rubber stamp, on land use policies presented by the mayor’s staff and then advise and recommend to the City Council their views on the proposals. They are appointed to a specific term by the council to represent citizen viewpoints.
A few months ago, one of the planning commissioners testified before the City Council in favor of a moratorium on apartments. Since the moratorium would be scheduled to appear before the Planning Commission some City Hall watchers were concerned that the commissioner would not be impartial when the issue was before the commission as the commissioner’s opinion had already been established and publicly presented. When asked at the time, Mayor Jim Ferrell’s Chief of Staff Brian Wilson expressed no concern as the issue was not quasi-judicial and therefore not subject to the appearance of fairness doctrine. While a legal risk to the city and the commissioner may not exist, the lack of concern for the public interest or perception was troubling. The appearance of fairness, rather than the doctrine, is still just as important as fairness itself. As one former city director said “cynicism of government at all levels is having a corrosive effect.”
Any resident who is opposed to the apartment moratorium may logically believe that the commissioner is predisposed to favor the moratorium, because she testified in public that she did. The testimony was likely well intended but also naïve in it’s lack of consideration of how others might view the situation. City Hall leaders’ lack of interest in open and transparent review of land use issues suggests a dismissive tone regarding residents’ views without giving them a level playing field for the debate. Next week the City Council will consider an extension of the moratorium.
But an even more unusual situation in City Hall has raised additional questions as a city of Federal Way employee in Public Works, a senior transportation engineer, also sits on the Planning Commission as a city resident.
In most cities, city employees do not sit on citizen advisory committees even if they live in the community. As city employees they are professionals that are paid to study and advocate for sometimes competing solutions. They also posses inside information, and have personal and professional relationships that the average volunteer commissioner or citizen would not have. Insider information can give them more influence over an issue and place any resident appealing to the commission at a disadvantage.
The employee has worked for the city since 1997, lived in Federal Way since 2007 and was appointed to the Planning Commission by the City Council in 2008 and has been reappointed since. When originally asked if the appointment was legal, the city attorney said she couldn’t find anything that said it was illegal. However, no one can recall any in-depth discussion about the potential problems the arrangement might cause. The only caution suggested by the legal department was that he should recuse himself from any issue upon which he has given input.
However, since the Planning Commission provides oversight to the work of his fellow employees and his boss, observers have raised the question whether or not a simple recusal provides the arms length cure to what could be a very awkward situation. When asked about the situation, Wilson again was not concerned.However, some city insiders have been concerned about the appearance for some time. They note the employee has had to recuse himself on several issues. But there are bigger concerns as some worry about the undermining interdepartmental relationships.
Would an independent third party such as a judge, jury or impartial citizen, really believe that a city employee acting in his dual capacity would not be affected by his daily working relationship with his colleagues? Or that he could actually speak against his supervisors’ opinion, or recommendation to the commission? How would internal difference of professional opinion play out between Planning and Public Works staff who are trained in different disciplines?
To the average citizen it could give the appearance that the employee can’t objectively serve two masters, the city government which employs him or the community of which he is a citizen. When I asked several current and former city staff and department heads at the Association of Washington Cities Conference for their opinion they were shocked that any city would even consider such an unnecessarily awkward situation. None had even heard of the arrangement before and assumed I was inquiring about a small town where there weren’t enough citizen volunteers, rather than a city of almost 100,000 residents. They couldn’t figure out which was worse, having a city employee on the commission or city leaders that failed to comprehend how much trouble the arrangement could lead to.
The additional problem presented in Federal Way is that the voters changed the city manager-council form of government to a strong mayor system. All the city employees work for the mayor and are part of his administration. The recommendations made by any department to any citizen board are considered the mayor’s recommendation.Wilson did not seem to have considered the possible unintended consequences that the change in form of government might have on an already sticky situation. But what if the employee, while not involved with a particular project, disagreed with the mayor’s position or another director’s position on a matter before the Planning Commission, and said so? A citizen appointee could vote their conscience with no fear, but the implications to an employee could be significant.
Several insiders, while concerned that the message sent to the public lacked the impartiality that was highly desired, were actually more concerned about the employees’ vulnerability to a politically charged atmosphere or politically oriented mayor.
To provide an example, the residents of the North Lake area are very unhappy about the IRG proposal for the Weyerhaeuser property and held a meeting on Oct. 13 with city leaders at Lakeland Elementary School. The residents made clear their unhappiness with the city and their desires for change. At the same meeting the chair of the Planning Commission invited residents to learn more about the Planning Commission and attend one of their meetings. Future circumstances could place Weyerhaeuser property issues in front of the Planning Commission. Also, at that meeting the city employee/planning commissioner participated in the public discussion on behalf of the city Public Works with the North Lake residents.
While he may recuse himself, how do you think the residents opposed to the land use decisions made by the city on the Weyerhaeuser property might view testifying in front of the Planning Commission knowing one of the commissioners is an employee of the mayor? And what if the volunteer/employee recuses himself, but then provides input, to his commission colleagues on behalf of the city? Would either of these scenarios be seen as fully fair, objective and transparent? Wouldn’t his colleagues on the commission be inclined to give his professional comments more weight?
Then consider the City Council who wants objective review and advice from the Planning Commission of the mayor’s proposals. But in the new form of government, one of their own appointees is on the mayor’s payroll. Some insiders think everything is all right because everyone involved is honest. If you’re not an insider, not only does the argument lack believability, but the lack of concern from city executives over transparency suggests a viewpoint out of touch with how citizens might feel about their city government.
Many years ago, these types of insider arrangements might have been necessary, as we were small and we didn’t know any better. But it’s 25 years later and we need to start acting like a city of 100,000 that might have competing interests and different points of view, not a city of 500 where everyone is an insider.
Fairness, objectivity and transparency count, and so do appearances.
Federal Way resident Bob Roegner is the former mayor of Auburn. He can be reached at bjroegner@comcast.net.
