The principal topic of Whitewater’s September 8th Common Council meeting involved a sewer backup to Lt. Joseph Cull’s property on Park Street.
I’ve written of this issue before. See, Inside (Whitewater) and Outside (America), and Anatomy of a Municipal Bureaucrat’s Explanation, Janesville Gazette: Marine Fighting Whitewater for Repair Costs, and Bureaucrat vs. Property Owner.
(I have no connection to Lt. Cull; my remarks are wholly my own.)
The video of last night’s Council meeting is available online, at Blip.tv. Online repositories like YouTube or Blip.tv are merely two of the many reasons to admire the opportunities of America. I offer commentary, but prefer to include original footage of meetings, so that readers can see for themselves. It’s admirable that actual footage is online so quickly; public access video is an honest medium.
See, also, the Blip.tv City of Whitewater Page.
We are a small town of great natural beauty, notable human trouble and misfortune, and yet still reason for hope greater still. We suffer from high unemployment, above-average poverty (including among children), disputes over municipal regulation and enforcement, city fiscal challenges, and racial tension. (The latter being so considerable that we now have a task force to address it.)
I mention these things for three reasons. First, because they’re true. Second, because one cannot solve these problems unless one acknowledges them; pretending we’re a micropolitan dream town helps nothing. Third, because difficulties addressing a sewer backup show how hard solving other problems will be.
A change in the politics and culture of this town could yet uplift its residents and improve our condition. I believe that a reduction in regulation, in the scope of local government, and increase in accountability would be of great benefit. Even of one feels other solutions would be better, is there any doubt the strident boosterism and cheerleading of today has been a failure?
A few remarks:
The Press. A Madison television station, WISC TV, broke this story. The Janesville Gazette followed with significant new reporting. Where was everyone else in the professional press?
Saying nothing.
They typically hang back, and either avoid covering a story like this, or wait in hope that they’ll be able to summarize the event, once over, omitting any explanatory details that might embarrass incumbent politicians and career bureaucrats.
Yet, they wonder why they’re afflicted with declining circulation.
They’ve stopped being relevant; timidity toward incumbent politicians is also unappealing.
Challenge to the Community. At the end of the evening, on a 6-1 vote, Council decided to pay a portion of the property loss to veterans’ groups, for distribution to Lt. Cull.
There’s an odd moment in the proceedings, where City Manager Brunner inexplicably ‘challenges’ the community to raise the rest.
Challenges like this are fairly common, but it’s odd, here. Brunner is hardly in the position of challenging the community; it’s the community that challenged Brunner, causing Council to reject his ‘out of our hands’ position.
Brunner Predictably Claims Credit. On September 3rd, Brunner prepared a memo to the Council, describing options available. On the second page of that memo, Brunner suggests the option of a contribution to a fund.
In the Common Council meeting, once the idea of contribution to a fund gained momentum, Brunner was quick to contend that his memo had recommended as much.
Amazing, really.
Is there any confidence that Brunner would have offered this contribution option before adverse publicity struck, itself a consequence of his own intransigence?
No.
It was Brunner, after all, who stood opposed to a deal. His memo of September 3rd is not evidence of his charity; it’s evidence that he couldn’t manage this matter earlier.
Sure enough, though, it’s now his idea.
See, Memo from Kevin Brunner, to Common Council Members, dated 9/3/09. (Memo begins on Page 2 of the documents.)
The Supporting Cast. Suppose you’re a bureaucrat, having supported an unpopular decision to deny insurance compensation to a United States Marine, serving in combat, against the Taliban.
(Here I am being merely practical. I know Cull has disclaimed support merely because he’s a Marine officer. I also know that well-heeled executives can’t help how they look.)
If you’re that bureaucrat, though, who would you bring to talk on behalf of your decision? Who would you bring to support your decision on television? (In effect, the presence of the executive seems like support for the bureaucrat; that’s how people will see it.)
Would you bring an insurance executive, CEO of a major insurer?
Why not just bring a representative of Big Tobacco, for all the difference it makes?
There was great foolishness in not settling earlier. But if the matter has been covered in print, on television, and online, don’t you want those explaining on your behalf to look like the community you serve? The country club look’s just not appealing in a struggling town.
Silence No Longer. Only a generation ago, few would have known about this story. Perhaps a neighbor or two, and the city leaders who turned away. If it was a story embarrassing to incumbents and bureaucrats, it would not have been printed (or would have been printed in a slanted way, to favor insiders).
Must have been a good time to be a thin-skinned, boastful bureaucrat.
Those days are over. Television stations and newspapers and blogs are accessible to people across markets, and news travels faster and farther than ever before.
Men like City Manager Brunner or Chief Coan look to be middle-aged, in their fifties, but in outlook they’re a generation older. Their top-down view of information, management, and authority is finished.
America’s changed, and left that older outlook behind. We have return to our earlier days, of small presses and common people. In a certain way, America has become more American.
It’s wonderful.
Binnie on Risk. Toward the end of the session, Council member Binnie announced that he would oppose a donation. He contended, generally, that the city should not offer compensation for a risk that a property owner assumed.
In another context, I’d surely agree. In this context, I think other concerns matter more. Far more.
First, settlements of damage claims occur for many reasons, practical among them. There should have been a deal in this matter, long ago. It would have been advantageous to the city and the property owner. By insisting against settlement, scrambling issues of liability and coverage, and proving himself incapable of addressing persuasively the issue before the press, Brunner made a hash of all this.
Second, rejection of a donation leaves the city manager and bureaucrats who made this mistake settled in the notion that their original stubbornness was justified, even righteous.
It wasn’t. Stubbornness is not a managerial virtue.
It’s true that there’s a cost to this. The city could appoint better leaders, less likely to fumble these issues – the best way to avoid adverse publicity is to do the right and practical thing early on.
Delaying, as Brunner did, only makes matters worse, and more costly, in money and publicity.
Third, this is the same dumb show we’ve seen before. So insistent and strident that they’ve done no wrong, until information shows how foolish a course of action has been.
This city administration has learned nothing.
Meanwhile, its bumbling diverts attention and effort from more serious problems.