"Avoid Surprises" and Other Redwood City Council Directives

Saturday the Redwood City City Council held a special meeting and study session to review strategic initiatives and review the 2019-2020 work plan. What was shocking about the study session wasn't the review of the strategic initiatives now realigned to be three priorities with some overarching themes which will be presented at the State of City address; but instead the instructions the moderator gave the council members and in particular the new council members as to proper roles and etiquette going forward. What I would call the beginnings of institutional indoctrination.

In no particular order some of the bullet points on the pre-printed sheets included:

• Direct Request to the City Manager, City Attorney or City Clerk
• … instead say you will follow up and get back to them
• Be open minded and realistic
• Avoid Surprises
• Allow Mayor and Vice Mayor to respond on behalf of the City
• Be clear when you are offering your personal opinion, not speaking on behalf of the Council

While some of it sounds innocuous enough the reality of the discussion around the items was chilling. By the time these items came up I was essentially the only person left from the public. (A couple of people came early to speak in public comment and left soon after.) I was so horrified that I raised my hand to speak as that was the format that was being used. The moderator acknowledged me; but explained that the format did not allow for me to participate unless the Mayor maybe so allowed me this one time. Mayor Bain allowed me to speak. I told the Council Members that from the way they were talking and in particular regarding the item “Avoid Surprises” that had finally so inflamed me that I raised my hand, it would appear that the whole process was a charade.

There were so many things to be shocked about.

We no longer believe in closed door rigidly hierarchical structures in the work place and yet Council members are being told that they cannot even talk to anyone on city staff. According to the moderator they are to act as if they only have two employees, the City Manager and the City Attorney, and direct any questions or issues only to them. The City Manager and City Attorney are to filter all discussions, handling all formal and informal contact with everyone else in the organization. City Manager Melissa Stevenson Diaz further explained that employees were wont to try to please the council members and in so doing not do what she needed them to do.

If council members get questions from the public or reporters (anyone today can post his own blog even when they own a national newspaper) they should ideally delay responding. For example they could tell the party in question they are in a meeting and will get back to them. (How much time was spent on this particular discussion item was just appalling.) It wasn’t clear to me that they really think they should get back to anyone. If pressed they should defer to the Mayor or Vice Mayor and if by any chance they did talk to someone make sure and clarify that this was their own personal opinion and not that of the Council. Nonetheless, Giselle Hale did share that during the campaign a reporter wrote a story saying she hadn’t responded and as soon as she found out she called him and he corrected the item in the online story.

And what was that “Avoid Surprises?” Make sure you had cleared everything with everyone else on Council. Diana Reddy didn’t understand exactly what that meant. Mayor Bain gave an example of a situation that developed years ago before anyone other than he and Vice Mayor Diane Howard were on council when a council member brought up some motion that hadn’t been discussed before and even got a second! The implication was how dare a council member do that prior to discussing this with everyone? I thought that was the point of the Brown Act. So what exactly are we watching on Monday evenings? A choreographed play that needs to be choreographed in small groups or through the City Manager or City Attorney as intermediaries? I had already felt that Council meetings were essentially choreographed. Now I know I wasn’t wrong. So much for transparency.

When I ran for Council three years ago, I actually worried that should I win -- I not only lost but came in last, so I really didn't need to be worried although in my defense I only decided to run days before the deadline -- once in office somehow my view of the world would switch. I hoped that wouldn't happen to me. Well it turns out that this wasn't as crazy a thought as it sounds. How I wish every single voter in Redwood City would have been there to hear all this for themselves.

At some point during the discussions , Giselle Hale noted, to her credit, that sometimes she comes to meetings (as a former planning commissioner she has been doing this for a while) with one set of thoughts gleaned from the informational packet and as the staff presentation and public comments come in she sees the item in a different light. This is one of the main reasons I really hate the format of public comment. As a fairly frequent speaker at Council, I have often felt that the format at Council meetings is very limited. I might make a comment that I believe will help Council members understand the issue in a different light and then during their discussions I realize that given their understanding and concerns about the issue that what I should have spoken about is a completely different item. Or the very worst is when staff is asked a clarifying question and the answer is clearly slanted if not worse. Unfortunately, in the current format there is no opportunity for the public to clarify and or respond to the concerns that come up during Council discussion. The reality is that to be effective, council members need to speak to their constituents as much as possible to be as informed as possible about all the issues before, during and after the council meetings. That to me is what "avoid surprises" should really mean.

One final thought. There was a fair amount of discussion devoted to “engaging the community” although it did seem to be focused on engaging the newcomers; making this almost nine-year resident of the community feel a little bit left out. I have to wonder if the reason that I was the only person from the public that showed up for this meeting (after almost nine years of this never have been the case before) is because residents don’t feel they are being listened to and have given up on being heard. You want to engage the community, you have to listen and act on what you have heard. Engagement is a two-way street.