Open communication is essential
In the firestorm that followed the stealth adoption of expanded Standards of Conduct (SOC) for county supervisors, the substance of the matter got lost. We still don’t know who wrote offending additions or authorized their last minute inclusion in information given only to the board.
The stealth with which SOC sections 13 and 14 appeared is reminiscent of the “midnight directives” (subject for a future entry) that have driven board decisions in recent years.
At the February 3 board of supervisors’ meeting, Ned Creasey, District 3 asked that the section of the Code of Virginia pertaining to rights of local employees be added to the packet and read aloud during the meeting. (See “Weekly follies” below)
William Quarles, Jr. District 2 contended that the county administration needs a clearly defined chain of command and defended the stricken sections of the SOC. (See “Cloudy day in the gulag” below)
Quarles said that the county administrator is imbued with only those powers granted by the supervisors. It’s hard to believe that someone as intelligent as Mr. Quarles could be so naïve about the manner in which the former county administrator dealt with Goochland employees.
Had the SOC, as explained by the former county administrator to county staff, been observed as he apparently intended, no supervisor would ever know that county employees were forbidden to speak to them.
The thuggish implication that any communication between supervisors and county employees must be vetted by the county attorney or county administrator seems lost on Quarles.
In a worst case scenario, if a county employee received unwanted advances from his department head and knew that department head was a good friend of the county administrator, that employee would have no conduit for a legitimate complaint of unacceptable behavior. His only avenue of redress would involve lawyers and the potential for expensive and embarrassing litigation against the county.
Supervisors are elected to make policy decisions and oversee county government operations to ensure that those policies are enacted. This arrangement demands demonstrated and absolute integrity on the part of the county administrator and open opportunity for oversight by the board. The trust of the board must be earned, not assumed.
In the recent past, that relationship seems to have been reversed giving the county administrator a perceived policy setting role. Indeed, there were far too many times when it seemed as though the board followed instructions from the county administrator instead of vice versa.
Unfolding revelations of chaos in the Utilities’ Department, which so far extend from undeposited checks to a potential public health and safety threat at Hidden Rock Park, clearly demonstrate the failure of misplaced trust.
A chain of command policy is sound in concept, but as constituted in sections 13 and 14, could easily be perverted into a mechanism to hide incompetence and abuse power.
Rather than a rigid chain of command policy, why not devise an open communications policy that encourages the flow of accurate information in all directions. The people who perform the myriad of tasks that result in a well-run organization have a different perspective on day–to day operations than those who make policy.
Pooling perspectives, information and expectations will result in more effective policy. Everyone who participates in the policy’s creation will have ownership and be far more supportive of its implementation.
Management by decree is rarely effective when employees are terrified of reprisal. (See ”The Emperor’s New Clothes”) Bully tactics are a dangerous substitute for genuine leadership.
Supervisors must be able to ask questions of any county employee and receive accurate, honest answers. Employees must have a comfort level that they will not be punished for communicating with board members, especially when reporting incompetence or abuse.
The arrogant indifference displayed by the majority of supervisors to the Utilities’ Department revelations is extremely troublesome.
Are they whistling past the graveyard in hopes that further lapses in sound management will not bubble to the surface, or so out of touch that they dismiss the current citizen uproar as the meddling of a few rabble rousers? They pay lip service to transparency in government while taking actions to further muddy already murky waters.
If we indeed all want the same end result — honest, effective government that conducts its affairs in the open and is accountable to the citizens from whom it derives its power — why all the shenanigans?
Trust in county officials, both elected and appointed, is vital, but there must also be mechanisms to verify that trust.
1 comment:
This is a letter I sent to the Gazette that did not make last week's paper....
Wow, democracy at work ! It’s been wonderful to watch as more and more people in our county become informed and involved. We have voiced our anger, frustration and concerns and clearly we have been heard. The Supervisors have acted on our concerns and we feel empowered. But with this power must come responsibility. We must be careful not to allow our outrage and disbelief over recent events to let this spin out of control. I think we all need to slow down and take a deep breath. We have the right to be upset and we should continue to demand answers and solutions to these problems, but we must also do this in a constructive, respectful environment so that in the midst of the turmoil we don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I’ve been doing a lot of reading lately, and I think now is a good time for the
supervisors to go back and read their own Code of Ethics and Standards of Conduct, and reflect on why they took the job in the first place. These documents are thoughtful and offer a framework of guidelines that I’m sure we can all support. The citizens need to read them also, and reflect on what they should expect and are entitled to from these officials. They can be found on the County website. The Code of Ethics holds the Supervisors to very high standards and their duties include finding the most equitable, efficient, effective and economical means of getting things done; exposing corruption, misconduct or neglect; conducting the public’s business in public and so on. The Standards of Conduct warns them to only offer criticism of colleagues or county employees in private meetings; to be tolerant and allow citizens, employees and colleagues opportunity to express themselves; to be respectful and attentive; and to be concise.
On the other hand, we citizens, would do well to pay attention to these Codes also and apply them to ourselves in our dealings with County officials and the Supervisors. During the public comment periods, no matter how angry or frustrated we are, we need to be respectful, attentive and tolerant, and make our own comments as concise as possible to allow others to express themselves. There is a Citizen Comment section in the Rules of Proceedure document for Board meetings. It encourages citizens to work through problems at the department/administrative level whenever possible. Perhaps, in future, our County administration will convey the idea that the citizen is welcome and encouraged to contact them with questions and concerns. This has not been the case in the past.
“We ask that remarks be limited to a reasonable period of time and to one appearance, thus allowing a maximum number of participants in the allocated time.” and also, “Persons wishing to discuss personnel matters with the Board should write the Board about the matter or communicate with a Board member on an individual basis.”
Fair enough. I think the justifiable anger and frustration with our County Administrator simply became so great that the dam broke and the floodgates opened, but I don’t want to see our BOS meetings become witch hunts. I have a lot of questions and concerns about a particular County employee and have expressed this to the supervisors on the phone, and will follow this in writing.
I encourage you to do the same. We have the right to ask questions, but we should remember that sometimes our assessments may be unfair, and our accusations or conclusions wrong. Discretion is important, but on the other hand these officials are accountable for their actions or lack of action, and we deserve some kind of response, and resolution of the issue.
I think the public comment period is essential to the supervisors and the citizens both. They should listen and be respectful to us, and we should do the same. And we need to remember, that as much as we want to express ourselves and be heard, there also needs to be appropriate time for county business. The document says that the Board chair should announce that a particular period of time will be set aside for this public comment. If he finds, at the end of that time period that there are more public comments, he can then set aside more time at the end of the meeting. I don’t think any of us want to give so many speeches that business is not conducted !
We are also reminded that it is unfair for us to expect the supervisors to respond to our questions or concerns immediately. Let’s not forget that we have other ways in which to communicate with our supervisors. We can call, email or write them. Also, any citizen can appear at any regular meeting of the Board , all they have to do is contact the County and ask to be placed on the agenda.
It is my hope that we will all continue to stay very involved in our local government. We’ve proven that we can make a difference and it’s a wonderful feeling to know our voices are heard. I just hope all of us (citizens, county officials, and supervisors) can be mindful of what our roles and responsibilities are and conduct ourselves appropriately. I truly believe that together, with the same purpose and commitment in mind, we can come together to put Humpty Dumpty and all the little pieces back together again.
Linda Wise
Manakin Sabot
Post a Comment