A New Tax and Lack of Citizen Involvement

At the July 7th, 2008 City Council meeting several citizens addressed the Council to ask about the proposed Utility Tax and specifically why more public participation was not sought. The Mayor and Council answered these questions with resounding silence. The Mayor is not one to let any comment go without a response even if his only response is to be dismissive to the citizens of Crest Hill. This time he and the other members of the Council sat silent because the only response that could have been given was that they did not want citizens to participate in the consideration of this new tax. Their hope is that the tax is silently implemented and no one notices.

This is simply the wrong attitude for our elected officials to have. The public deserves to be included in the making of all decisions, especially the enactment of a new tax. Regardless of how badly the city needs the revenue or how much better this new tax might be than the alternatives, the public still deserves to be engaged. Tell us why this tax is needed, tell us what other options are out there, listen to our opinions, solicit our ideas for alternatives, and then make an informed decision and do what you believe is best for Crest Hill and its residents. That is all I and many of my fellow citizens ask of our Mayor and City Council.

Response to an Anonymous Critic, Part I

I have previously responded to some comments by posting comments myself and I have corresponded with some readers by e-mail. However, there have been some recent comments that I feel should be addressed in their own postings. This first one is being split in half because then last shot that the writer took at me and others deserves to be a subject on its own and in fact is of greater importance than this first item I will respond to. It would be interesting to know who the anonymous commenter was, however he/she did not feel confident enough to leave a name or e-mail address.

Anonymous stated:
You are partially right in regards to the opens meeting act, however, I believe you need a hearning aid because they do say why they are going into a closed session. They may not list each item prior to adjourning to closed session but during the course of the meeting it is mentioned that a executive session is needed. Second - if your truly read the law then you know it is permissable to have an executive session for personnel. Would you like your employer to discuss you in front of everyone, whether it was your evaluation, medical condition for a medical leave or a discpline problem. I think not so get off it. I don't think you mentioned that by "law" you can hold an executive, or closed, session for personnel, litigation, and/or land acquisition. I also belive that by law the minutes from said closed session are available for review after 6 months by filing a freedom of information act. So file away!

My response:
The intent of the law is that the reasons for the closed session are to be part of the motion for the closed session. Off-hand comments during the meeting as to issues on which a closed session is needed are not sufficient.

I never said that it was not permissible to hold a closed session for personnel reasons. I simply stated that not every issue that can be connected to personnel has to be in closed session. I do not think it would be appropriate to discuss an employees medical condition in open session, in fact that may run afoul of medical privacy laws. And I would strongly recommend that discipline and evaluations be done in closed session. However, pay and hours should be in open session. And that does mean that the question of why Employee X is not getting a raise could come up and the answer could be poor performance. And performance issues that are not related to a specific disciplinary action usually should be subject to open discussion.

I certainly do not think that closed sessions are without merit or proper usefulness. I just believe that they should be used sparingly and only when necessary for reasons of protecting key privacy of employees, protecting the city in ongoing legal and financial negotiations and where required by law.

Citizen Involvement

The City of Crest Hill has few opportunities for citizen involvement in government and has reduced those opportunities in recent months. There once were Road Improvements and Budget committees, but Mayor Churnovic has eliminated those. This is the wrong direction to be moving.

Mayor Churnovic used the excuse that now that there is a City Administrator in place, there is not a need for the committees. I do not understand why citizen involvement is being replaced by the City Administrator. I did not think that Crest Hill was getting rid of democracy, but that is what appears to be happening.

I certainly do not oppose the hiring of a City Administrator and was previously employed by a different city as their City Administrator. The city I worked for actually used the hiring of a City Administrator to facilitate more citizen involvement. Their logic was that a City Administrator could coordinate more meetings of committees and allow committees to be citizen run with far less involvement by City Council members. This increase in citizen involvement was an absolutely positive situation for the city.

City Council members cannot effectively control every aspect of city government, they simply do not have the time. It also is not a good idea to concentrate too much power in just a few people. Committees are an effective way to get more citizens involved in issues that they care about. An individual may not be very concerned about how the police department is run, but may be very concerned about the conditions of our streets; while another person wants to see improvements made in how the city budgets, but has no interest in zoning issues. Committees dealing with specific areas of city government would allow each of these people to be involved and contributing to improving the city.

The alternative to citizen involvement is to concentrate the power in the hands of a few elected officials and entrust the City Administrator to handle all matters that the Mayor or City Council do not have time for or the ability to handle. This seems to be anti-democratic though and a step in the wrong direction. I would like to see more committees, more discussion, and more citizen involvement.