For most of the life of our Village, decisions were made by the Commission. The details and considerations behind those decisions were the responsibility of those Commissions. Commissioners were expected to make themselves knowledgeable about a range of issues: municipal finance, public works, management of a police force, the running of a parks and recreation department, and other things about which the average person knows nothing. But that was their job, and they had to do it. If they didn't know the first thing about it, which must have been true for the vast majority of Commissioners over the decades, then they would either stumble onto a decision that worked, or they would make decisions that didn't work.
Dan Keys says it was actually his idea at first. He was a Commissioner himself for 10 years, and he saw the difficulty, or perhaps folly, of having our Commissions function as they were functioning. And Dan has long worked for a large, successful, and upscale municipality himself, so he knows what real management looks like. He thought we really needed a professional manager to do the job right. After some years of what he seems to portray as behind-the-scenes maneuvering, and letting the process happen, a Charter Review Committee finalized its work in 2005, and presented for the approval of the then Commission, and the public at large, a scheme whereby daily decision-making, and even a certain amount of overarching planning, would be transferred from the Commission to a professional manager. To this day, Commissioners have not been able to agree as to how much of what kind of decision-making is the responsibility of the manager, and how much should be up to Commissioners. Or how much they can bring themselves to surrender.
There's a missing link, however. Whether the statutory decision-makers were Commissioners or a professional manager, there have always been advisors. These advisors have been local residents who are particularly devoted to the neighborhood, and many of whom have either special interest or actual expertise in the areas in question. These advisors comprise the Boards of the Village. There are five such Boards, not counting the Foundation, and each has five appointed members. Two of the Boards are "quasi-judicial," and they issue formal rulings that have legal weight. If Planning and Zoning says you can't do something, you can't do it. And there's no one to whom you can turn to overrule them. If Code Compliance says you're out of compliance, and you owe a fine for it, your only appeal is to the Circuit Court. No one in the Village can help you. The other Boards are less formally imposing, and Commissions have also taken the opportunity to give them less weight in dictating policy. So meetings of Parks and Parkways, Ecology, and Recreation Advisory are less formalized. They're also less well-attended, even by their members. Their agendas and mandates are less urgent and specific. To put it somewhat bluntly, we don't take them fully seriously, so they don't take themselves fully seriously.
It doesn't have to be that way. It appears that by now, most Village residents see the folly in having Commissioners try to be experts about things in which they have little specific interest and even less knowledge. So we were right to change the system. If this were a large municipality, it would make sense to leave essentially all decision-making to a professional manager. But since we're small, and compact, and we happen to have a collection of residents who are both deeply devoted to the neighborhood and in many cases expert in the areas under consideration, it doesn't make much sense essentially to ignore them and their counsel. For the Commission to set aside the determinations of these Boards and Ad Hoc groups, in favor of either their own impulses and leanings, or the pleas of one or two of their friends, is rude and foolish. It is not in the spirit or the service of this unique neighborhood.
It may be that we didn't fully commit in 2005. We used to have five jobs to do and five Commissioners to do them. The jobs of four of the Commissioners are now entrusted to the Manager. Maybe we should have reduced the number of Commissioners from five to three, since they no longer had to do the detail part of the heavy lifting. But whatever we do, or whatever they do, they should elevate the Boards instead of ignoring them. This Village should really be Board-driven. We are unique in our ability to afford to function that way.
Errata: It seems to me I was potentially a bit harsh in characterizing Commissioners as being essentially ignorant of a range of matters. What I meant was that they're not expert, because these are not their fields. There's the occasional exception, like Richard Ederr, who knows a lot about finance, because he's an accountant. Mostly, that's not the case.
Second, it seems to me I come across as exclusively indicting the Commissions for ignoring the Boards. My error. It's also the Manager who ignores them and their counsel. The one exception of which I'm aware is when the Village acquired a piece of outdoor public art, the Manager asked a joint sitting of three Boards where to install it, and she did what they recommended.
Third, one reader suggested I was wrong to say there is no recourse once P&Z have ruled. I believe that to be true, but I'm rechecking. A resident's request for a variance is not a maneuver to go over the heads of P&Z. It is an effort to have an improvement not permitted by the Codes: an improvement P&Z would not have been allowed to approve anyway, even if they liked it. Sometimes, P&Z will recommend the homeowner pursue a variance, and P&Z will endorse it, because the homeowner wants something P&Z agrees is a good idea but which it is not allowed to approve according to the Code.
Finally, I was referring to the standing Boards. It's certainly true that the ad hoc committees, currently including the Code Review Committee, are not given any more respect than the standing Boards. My complaint about their mistreatment, which is really a mistreatment of our neighbors who serve on these committees, is the same as my complaint related to the standing Boards.
No comments:
Post a Comment