League of Women Voters

7:00 p.m., NCRC Room 106

Jane McWilliams, LWV Observer

All councilors were present, as were City Administrator Joel Walinski, and Irena and Richard Furman, facilitators.

At their January 26, 2010 goal setting session, the council ran out of time before discussing and setting up an action plan for 2009 Goal #4:  the council will implement a systematic approach to problem solving and decision making. Facilitator Richard Fursman began the discussion asking whether the council could recall when they had had a divided vote, what it was like to be one of the majority, and whether a councilor had a different responsibility if they voted on one side or the other. What is the “emotional commitment if you win? When you ultimately made the decision was it intellectual or emotional?  Is there a process which solves the problems created by divided votes?”

Mayor Mary Rossing said the council is good at “turning the page” once a decision is made. The divided vote under discussion to illustrate was the final decision to plant trees in a segment of 4th street to be reconstructed this summer.  The complicating factors were 2 conflicting advisory board recommendations, the staff recommendation during the first decision, and subsequently, public suggestions which caused the council on a divided vote to rethink the initial decision. Councilor Betsey Buckheit pointed out that although the staff often presents several options for decisions, these don’t always represent all possibilities. For her in this instance are two issues:  community values and engineering values. In the case of the trees, community sentiment trumped the engineer’s recommendation.  There were no explicit responses from other councilors to Fursman’s questions about what goes into the decision or the ultimate effect for each councilor. It wasn’t clear to this observer what he was trying to achieve with his questions, and he didn’t explain what he was trying to elicit.

Councilor Kris Vohs brought up the problem of how councilors who are “passionate” about an issue can bring it forward.  Sometimes, he said, an issue is lost somewhere. And doesn’t come to the council level. Councilor Zweifel was reluctant to do so without some staff preparation. She noted, “We need to outline a process.”  Mayor Rossing said that a lot depends on the council’s priorities.  She and Administrator Walinski work together to set individual meeting agendas. Councilor Buckheit said she looked to the mayor to determine when issues within a council goal should be brought up.  “She has the power to shape the agenda.” Councilor Rhonda Pownell seemed to disagree, and suggested that the agenda is “dependent on all of us up here. Mary’s not the one who says where we go. We do it as a council.”  Councilor Jim Pokorney asked how certain things get on the agenda and while others don’t?  “How much of a leader and how much of a facilitator do we want Mary to be? A stronger mayor role might get us to things quicker.”

This observer couldn’t find a consensus on this very important question:  the role of the mayor in determining the council’s “agenda” in the larger sense.

Fursman then asked each councilor to define their role. Mayor Rossing thanked the council for the invitation to give her opinion during a discussion. She invited the council to talk to her about what they are thinking.  Administrator Walinski noted that there is a difference among the definitions of the role of councilors, that it was good to get these insights.

The council had a “great discussion” according to Fursman, and while they didn’t cover “much of the lake, you dove deep, rather than water skied.”  Perhaps there was raw material to assist designing steps toward the goal of establishing a systematic approach to decision-making as result of this evening’s discussion. As facilitator, it might be expected that Furman will create a synthesis of the answers to his questions. Whether this accomplishes the evening’s purpose is  yet to be seen.