A Season of Peace?

This is the season of peace on earth and goodwill towards all, but it does not feel that way to me.  On my mind as a parent has been the tragedy in Connecticut; on my mind as an elected official has been the public discourse that has followed the tragedy.  There is important substance in the exchange of ideas about what to do about school shootings, but the mean quality and negative attitude of some of the public conversations have me again thinking about how we relate to one another, how public policy depends on public opinion, and how a representative democracy solves problems.

Can We Talk? Before the violence at Sandy Hook Elementary School, I was depressed by a spectacle in our State Capitol, where a group of elected officials raced through legislation without discussion, and a group of citizens raced the Capitol doors without decorum.  There was no dialogue, only shouting and name-calling.  People who are my friends compared our popularly-elected Governor to a genocidal dictator; other of my friends used despicable terms of body waste to refer to the people who teach our children and build our cars.  There was no holiday cheer in Lansing, and very little goodwill in the public exchange of opinion that accompanied the process.

Perhaps it's the speed and shortness of response offered by Facebook and Twitter, but my online reading strongly suggests that people have lost the ability to respect one another.  Rather than engage in conversation, or even write a message to a legislator, the favorite form of expression these days is a  angry, snide, or rude posting that demeans those who hold a contrary opinion.  Anger can be useful to move us toward action, and certainly history shows righteousness to be a motivating force for positive change.  However, I fear we are moving to anger not based on the disruption of a truth we hold dear, but because of our failings as a people to talk to one another.

Representative Democracy.  I ran for public office, as I believe most people do, because I want to help my fellow citizens, strengthen my community, and serve in what I believe is the best form of government.  The idealism contained in the previous sentence has been put to the test in my three years as a City Councilmember.  I have been called an anti-constitutionalist, godless, a shill for business interests, a communist, financially self-serving, and a criminal (among other things).  Most of it is so ridiculous as to not be worth recounting, and I don't do so to seek sympathy. I know criticism comes with the job, but I worry what such language does to the public dialogue that is necessary for our democracy to work.

We elect people to represent our interests, our point of view, our concerns. We hold public hearings, and enshrine this process with rules and procedures, so that people can share their opinions and expertise with those who must make decisions.  We make provisions so that the deliberations and actions of our representatives are open to all and can be easily shared through the media.  As an elected official, I value public input and seek it out through both formal and informal means, both at Council meetings and at the supermarket, and in handwritten letters and on my Facebook page.  I especially enjoy longer conversations and group meetings where there is a chance for true dialogue.

Good Conversation is hard to have when people are calling one another names, distorting the truth, and attacking the motives of their opponents.  I worry that when the State Capitol, or City Hall, or an on-line venue is dominated by extreme points of view, those with more moderate perspectives choose not to participate.  And when one side makes an outrageous attack against the other, the emotional response is also one of anger.  When I am criticized in extreme terms, I certainly don't hear well what the other person is trying to say.  That is not only unfortunate, it also reduces the input I get as a decision-maker.

Democracy depends on getting out the most information as possible; verbal assaults reduce our collective knowledge.  Like a nozzled hose, an angry protest may increase the power of the flow of information, but it also limits how widely that knowledge may be shared.  If democracy is a garden, wide conversation, not a narrow stream of insults, will make it grow.

A House Divided Cannot Stand.  I worry that extreme voices, harsh language, and a lack of respect will paralyze local, state, and federal government.  Perhaps it already has. If there was anything that could bring us together, one would think it would be the death of innocent children. "This is our first task--caring for our children," said the President of the United States. "It's our first job.  If we don't get that right, we don't get anything right." Yet, even during this speech, people were criticizing the President, with racial epithets, for interrupting a football game.

Constitutional rights and civil rights are all serious topics where one might expect emotions to be high.  But I now hear outrage, and read the "F" word online, when the City Council discusses water fees, building codes, or snow shoveling.  These are all important issues, to me at least, but are they so visceral that only strong emotion is the only viable form of expression?

So What to Do?  Maybe the issues that face us, such as the inexplicable use of assault weapons by those with a history of mental illness, are too difficult for government to address. I don't think so, but the answers are not easy. I think people feel disenfranchised from, and distrustful of, government, even at the local level.  Those of us involved in government, especially those who are elected to represent the public, need to work harder to welcome people into the process, to value their presence, to truly hear them, and to engage in conversation.  We need to work harder to find a common language, to speak the truth, and to listen boldly.  We need to stop the shouting, so we can hear.

For all of us involved in our democracy, at any level, whatever in our role as citizen or official, here are five things we can do to begin to restore meaningful dialogue (and I need to remind myself frequently of these goals):

1. Take a deep breath, stay calm, think before we speak, and don't overreact.
2. Value all voices; start with the assumption that the other guy has good intentions, even if they are mistaken in their position; show respect.
3. Listen first, speak second; ask questions; or as Stephen Covey said "Seek first to understand, then to be understood."  
4. Be truthful in all that you say and do; rely on data; base your argument on facts, not insults.
5. Be comfortable with ambiguity; there may be more than one right answer, and you probably don't have it.  

I am fortunate to be part of a City Council where the men and women who serve on it seriously strive to reach these standards.

What I have (re)learned in the past week is that we cannot control everything, we cannot prevent bad things from happening.  We need each other to get through the tough times.  And as much as we may want to, we can't solve every problem; but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.  We need each other to find the best solution.  None of us alone is as smart as all of us together.  But for us to rely on one another, to help one another, we need to be able to talk to one another.

Social Media, Social Capital

Is the internet good for society? For those of us who work to build up a particular place, should we be online or on the streets? Owosso has a new online social network designed to specifically strengthen community, and it seems off to a promising start.

Social Capital. Owosso, like most small towns, works as a community because of the many personal connections and relationships that underlie almost any business, governmental, or nonprofit endeavor. Things happen because people trust one another, or at least they know one another, and thus they know who to call on when they want to get something done. This basic aspect of community has been called "social capital." And just as a place can be evaluated by its economic capital (i.e. monetary wealth) and physical capital (i.e. buildings and infrastructure), we can measure the health of a community by the number and strength of personal connections that exist.

Historically, Owosso's social capital was built almost exclusively on personal encounters that occurred in coffee shops, on downtown sidewalks, and across backyard fences. Read Thomas Mallon's excellent novel "Dewey Defeats Truman," set in Owosso in 1948, to get a feel for how the casual gatherings in peoples homes, face-to-face business transactions, and political rallies in front of City Hall all helped citizens make new connections or deepen existing relationships. Today, we still run into one another in the supermarket parking lot, but people seem so busy and self-absorbed that sometimes weeks go by before I run into certain colleagues or friends.

Electronic Media: Good or Bad? Is the celphone, email, and the World Wide Web to blame for us being isolated from one another? Robert Putnam wrote a book called "Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community" that noted the decline in social capital. The title comes from the odd statistical fact that the number of people who go bowling has increased over the last several decades, but the number of people who bowl in leagues has declined. His book recounts how the number of, and participation in, service clubs, organized social functions, and civic events have decreased. Our social capital seems to be eroding.

Among several causes he identifies, one is the rise in electronic communication avenues. He writes, "No sector of American society will have more influence on the future state of our social capital than the electronic mass media and especially the internet." He is not alone in decrying the potential isolating forces of the personal computer. We have a vision of the reclusive geek surfing, alone, through the waves of information and images provided by the internet. Of course, it does put limitless knowledge and worldwide connections on our desktop and now on our smartphones. But, as we participate in chat rooms about our favorite TV shows (or whatever), or conduct business in Asia (or wherever), are we losing connection with our neighbors? Do we know more about what is going on with Grammy Awards (the #1 trending issue on Twitter as I write) than we do with our own community?

CommonPlace. A new effort to use the internet to help people in a place-based community connect with one another has been started by some socially-minded entrepreneurs. Called CommonPlace (you can find our local version at www.ourcommonplace.com/OwossoCorunna), this initiative is now underway in several communities in the US to provide an internet tool for local residents and organizations to share information. Interactions include postings about lost dogs, parade announcements, new business openings, and formation of a community flute choir. Participants have used the service to find someone to practice sign language with, get rid of old equipment, and raise donations for a food pantry.

The idea is to replicate online the social sharing that occurs person-to-person in a community where people see one another regularly. "CommonPlace is designed to encourage users to engage with their neighbors," says organizer Heather Rivard, an Owosso native who returned home after graduating from college and took on the job of initiating this service. CommonPlace financially supported her work along with that of another community organizer. They have in 10 weeks worked signed up more than 900 participants.

Avoiding the Flames. CommonPlace is not unlike other social networks such as Facebook, the comment section of the online newspaper, or email services in that it provides a forum for sharing of information and events. However, it has avoided the negative comments, personal attacks, and rumor-mongering that sometimes dominates online systems. A positive tone has been maintained due to monitoring of posts, the clear delineation of the various forums on CommonPlace, and by limiting users to actual residents of Owosso and Corunna. One is required to provide a street address to sign up, although it is never listed online. This not only diminishes spam and other internet junk, it helps neighborhood posts to be targeted to geographically defined areas.

Social Media and Civic Life. CommonPlace serves primarily to connect neighbors to neighbors, using electronic rather than face-to-face communication. As a City Council representative, I have used it as another platform to provide information to constituents. For more than two years I have been providing a bi-weekly email to several hundred people with news from every Council meeting (if you would like to receive these updates you can sign up here). I have started to post a copy of this update on CommonPlace as a way to further dialogue. It is unclear yet whether this is reaching a new audience or otherwise facilitating the civic life in Owosso.

The City of Owosso, like other local governments, is trying to use the internet and social media as a way to engage citizens. With a limited budget, the City has yet to re-design its official website, but it still provides a static way to disseminate information. Recently, the City established a Facebook presence, something our neighbor Corunna has successfully promoted. In addition, Owosso has made use of online survey tools to garner citizen opinion on street light designs, park improvements, and the updating of its Master Plan. Still, a recent broad survey using both online and hard-copy options discovered that most residents still prefer something they can touch and write on as a way to exchange information and opinions.

Social Media, Social Capital. CommonPlace seems to be an interesting and positive step forward in building social capital in our community. If you have not joined, I would urge you to do so. If you do belong, then you need to not only read the daily updates that are sent out, but also post news, ask questions, or otherwise create opportunities for interaction. The internet is a tool, and it can be used for good or ill, but if it is not used to build community connections it will isolate us further. "Using social media without changing how we think about social change will create only more noise," says Allison Fine in her book "Momentum: Igniting Social Change in the Connected Age." Interestingly, this 2005 book does not mention Facebook, a sign that the electronic landscape changes rapidly around us.

Recommendations for using social media to build social capital:

1. Get online, but use the tools that work for you. CommonPlace is intriguing, but you may find Facebook, Twitter, or other tools a great way to get connected. Don't feel it necessary to use them all, but try something out.

2. Use social media to reinforce, not replace personal interactions. It's extremely efficient to share information online, but take advantage of the tool to say thank you for the coffee just shared, or to post photos from a community gathering, or to organize another face-to-face meeting.

3. Be nice, be responsible. It seems that the disembodied voice a keyboard provides encourages people to say/write/post some mean things. Likewise, sometimes we are quick to read into someone else's 140 character a bad intention that may not be there. Don't type out anything you wouldn't say in person to someone, and seek to clarify what others say before you react. Realize whatever you write online can show up somewhere other than you may have intended. Be transparent.

4. Invite others to join in. A frequent criticism of small towns is that while friendly at first, they are not always open to those who didn't grow up in the place. Social media can be a good way to reach out and create groups and gatherings that are welcoming to newcomers.

Books Mentioned:

Thomas Mallon, "Dewey Defeats Truman"

Robert Putnam, "Bowling Alone"

Allison Fine "Momentum"

Stay the Course: Four for City Council

City Council of Owosso accepts recognition as a "Tree City."

Left to right: Gary Martenis, DNR rep, Mayor Ben Frederick, Tom Cook, Joni Forster, Cindy Popovitch, and Chris Eveleth.

On November 8, voters in Owosso will conduct a performance review of City government. If they like the work being done, they will return Ben Frederick and Chris Eveleth to the City Council. I believe we should stay the course of progress that has been set the past two years. In addition, two newcomers will be added to the Council. Personally, I know Lori Bailey and Richard Crutts well and I believe they will be effective additions to local government. Other candidates bring other strengths and I believe they have good intentions in running for City Council; I pledge to work with whomever is elected.

Much has been accomplished in the last two years since the last election, and I believe Owosso can make further improvements if we continue with the policies and programs now underway. Owosso's unique City Charter allows for a majority turnover in the Council, as occurred in 2010. The top three vote-getters in the election (Cindy Popovitch, Mike Erfourth and myself in 2010) are elected to four year terms (and thus we are not up for election at this time); the fourth place finisher (Chris Eveleth) is elected to a two-year term, and must run for re-election again. By having an election every two years, voters are able to create change, but the staggered terms also provide for a continuity in experience. I would argue that the experience that Ben Frederick and Chris Eveleth have gained is too valuable to lose from the City at this time of fiscal challenges and growth opportunity.

Here are five important accomplishments of the last two years:

1. New City Manager and Community Development Director. The City Council sets policies, adopts a budget, and passes local ordinances; it is the City Manager's responsibility to run local government. Hiring a City Manager is arguably the most important decision a Council makes, and I believe the current Council carried out both a responsible process and made an excellent decision in hiring Don Crawford. In turn, Don hired Adam Zettel, a professional city planner. Along with several other existing talented staff, they have made much progress in improved budgeting, cost-cutting and fiscal management, and development of Owosso. Importantly, the Council has been clear in setting goals for the work of the City Manager and for the first time in my knowledge, has incorporated these goals into the performance evaluation of his work.
2. Economic Development has been the top priority of the City Council, and continuing this direction is probably the best reason to stay the course. Early on we adopted a new policy on tax abatements that has not only supported new economic development (e.g. the expansion of Machine Tool & Gear, the renovation of the old Owosso Dry Cleaners as a home for a new employer), it has ensured that the policy is carried out equitably, and with an emphasis on the creation of good-paying jobs; existing companies and those who hire local people also get extra incentives. In addition, the City has built a strong working relationship with the Shiawassee Economic Development Partnership.
3. Housing Improvement has been a personal point of emphasis for Mayor Frederick, and the Council has supported his initiatives to continue with the registering and inspection of rental housing. In addition, the City has secured several state/federal grant and loan programs to support housing rehabilitation. These efforts both improve the quality of life for those who live in our community and help protect neighborhood property values. Given foreclosures and the poor economy, much more work needs to be done; we need to not only stay the course, but also expand our partnerships with property owners.
4. Downtown Development was begun several years ago with the receipt of several grants, but the current City Council has continued to emphasize downtown improvements. Most notably, the Council adopted a historic district in the downtown and this has financially aided the redevelopment and expansion of several downtown businesses (for example, Freddie's and Hankerd's Sportwear). Importantly, the historic district has enabled the rehabilitation of the Lebowsky Center. One of the reasons I ran two years ago was because the previous Council was antagonistic to this effort (Mike Cline, currently running for office, called for its demolition). The creation of the new Shiawassee Performing Arts Center is not yet complete, and its important to have a supportive Council. Both Ben (Owosso Community Players) and Chris (Main Street Glow Parade) have volunteered their personal time to promote downtown.
5. Parks and Recreation are still a significant need in Owosso, and our financial picture has slowed progress. But for the first time in some years, the City has actually appropriated funds to match volunteer efforts to make capital improvements we will see in the spring (Kiwanis baseball fields and Bentley Park). In addition, the update of the City's Parks Plan as a step in the adoption of a new Master Plan has the potential to further enhance the quality of life in Owosso. The City Council will miss the advocacy that retiring councilmembers Gary Martenis and Joni Forster have brought to our parks; I hope the newly elected council members will carry on this work

There are several other accomplishments that I could cite, but the list above shows that the current Council has been a productive governing body. I believe it would be unfortunate to reverse course on any of these initiatives, and I am voting for the two incumbents on the Council to help ensure we continue to move forward in these areas.

Newcomers. In addition to Ben Frederick and Chris Eveleth, there are several other people running for the City Council. To me, it's important that the electorate choose two people with the experience and temperament to contribute to the current work of the City. Several of the candidates have served on the Council in the past, including Richard Crutts, who served during the Gregg Guetschow era, a time when several wise fiscal decisions were made. I personally know Dick and have confidence that he will serve with the best of intentions, be responsive to residents, and be open-minded in Council discussions. Of the newcomers, I worked with Lori Bailey when she was principal of Central School. She has a first-hand knowledge of the importance of Owosso as a place for families, and currently works doing small business promotion with the Chamber of Commerce. Both of these perspectives will be useful on the Council.

Cooperation and Leadership. Beyond the issues, the ability to get along with members of the public, City staff, and the other Councilmembers is a critical quality to consider when deciding whom to vote for. In our hyper-partisan political climate, we seem to think that our elected leaders should be at the head of protests, loudly pushing their ideology, and denigrating points of view that are not their own. Sadly, that attitude seems to creep into local government, even though City Council is a non-partisan office. The old-time small town rumor mill, and the new electronic forums of the internet, seem to feed off such controversy.

I think some members of the Owosso electorate perceive a lack of personal pyrotechnics as a sign of weak leadership or slow progress. But just because we are not calling each other names, or attacking City employees in public, does not mean that the current Council is not vigorously engaged in the issues. Attendance at a City Council meeting would reveal that we do not all agree with each other, and a close reading of Council minutes shows that our votes are often 5-2 or 4-3. However, we do not attack each other and while this leaves less for the media to cover, it does enable us to work together on the next issue, and the issue after that. It is important that the new members of the City Council contribute to such a positive working atmosphere.

A word about the leadership of our Mayor, Ben Frederick. The Mayor is elected to this post by the Council, and even though I was nominated for this post, I am happy that I voted for his selection as Mayor two years ago. Ben and I do not agree on all political issues, but we agree on the importance of effective local democracy. I have come to be quite impressed with his commitment and skill at having the Council work together, to honor the efforts of public servants, and to invite public participation. To achieve these aims, I have seen him subvert his own goals to support the common effort. Many times he could have grandstanded or obstructed the process to score political points; he has chosen instead to champion the democratic process. To me, this is the true definition of leadership: to bring together diverse points of view to work toward common goals.

For the reasons outline above, to continue the positive attitude of our local government, and to stay the course toward further economic growth in the City of Owosso, I am supporting Lori Bailey, Richard Crutts, Chris Eveleth and Ben Frederick for City Council on November 8.

I welcome your comments and your arguments in support of these or other candidates. Again, I am strong believer in the power of local democracy and am committed to working with whomever the electorate chooses to represent them.

Words Matter

Talk may be cheap, but good communication supports healthy relationships in our families, effective workplaces, successful community organizations, and our democratic form of government. Sadly, when words are chosen poorly, or misused, or even abused, we all suffer.

When is it OK to call local officials criminals?

Recently, an online posting asked this question: "is destruction without vote to historic Owosso landmark a crime?" and went on to suggest that local officials acted illegally in allowing for the demolition of Holman Pool. Now, my purpose here is not to review the demise of this 50 year old recreational facility that was no longer financially viable to operate, maintain, or even renovate. Nor do I want to discuss the profound nature of a legal designation on the National Register of Historic Places (e.g Curwood Castle) and the unsupportable assertion that an old pool is such a landmark. Nor do I want to enter into a long explanation of the legislative role of the City Council versus the administrative role of the City Manager (the former is responsible for policy and budget, the latter for operations; in this case the budget clearly calls for pool demolition). Nor do I want to discredit any community member that has worked hard to provide for aquatic recreation in Owosso, for I hope they continue their efforts.

Rather, I want to make a point about public discourse in the process of government at all levels. Democracy depends on getting the best information, hearing the best policy proposals, and seeking the best solutions. Being open to public input, and allowing for public debate including vigorous argument, are essential to this process. I would go so far as to say that we need criticism, at least when founded on fact or an honest difference on policy direction. However, political debate at the national, state, and sadly even the local level has degenerated to name calling, the negative painting of an opponent's view, and harsh criticism of difficult decisions. Labeling someone a criminal (or a Communist, or a Nazi) is not likely to lead to reasonable debate and effective problem solving.

Complex Problems Require Trust to Resolve

It's not that such personal attacks sting, the issue of concern is what ad hominem arguments do to the ability of deliberative bodies to solve problems. Despite how the media and some political operatives behave, many of the problems facing representative government bodies cannot be reduced to a simple black-and-white, right-or-wrong definition. Issues like Holman Pool involve difficult fiscal decisions, regulatory requirements, and strong personal attachments. Other issues have unclear legal boundaries (e.g. medical marijuana) , or involve people's interpretation of their personal rights and responsibilities to neighbors (e.g. burning). Sorting through these complex issues requires a public body like the City Council to ask questions, try out potential solutions, and listen with an open-mind to various viewpoints. When someone has been calling you names, it is hard to engage in the give and take required to identify a solution that accommodates all points of view.

When faced with complex issues, as an elected official I have to trust that my fellow councilmembers, the media, and the public are willing to listen to a variety of ideas, fairly praise or criticize them, and suggest alternatives. However, solutions to complex problems tend to be complex as well, and opponents now quickly find a narrow angle of attack and exploit it. Take Holman Pool, rather than accepting the work of engineers and the careful recommendation of two different citizen committees headed up by a pool champion (Gary Martenis), opponents prefer to say the Council is anti-children and that City staff are engaging in illegal actions. Such attacks gain more comments on an online forum than a discussion of the decay of pipes or a cost-benefit analysis of aquatic recreation options, but they don't help democratic bodies make good decisions.

As an elected official criticized in this fashion, one can either fight back (and this makes you look combative and mean) or you can choose not to respond (and then appear snobbish or dismissive). What you would like to do is engage in a discussion, share some mutual education, and seek out common ground solutions. However, to do so, you have to trust you won't be attacked or called names. Without this trust, you can't communicate. If you can't communicate, you can't understand other viewpoints. If you can't understand, you can't change.

A Local, State, and National Problem

Perhaps I shouldn't complain, because the local attacks are minor compared to what occurs on the state and federal level. During the national health care debate, some opponents of the President's proposals were quick to label him a socialist, even though his plan depends on the private health care industry. It is valid to oppose to President Obama's initiative, but unfair and unhelpful to depict him as Adolph Hitler. Likewise at the state level, when Governor Rick Snyder supported new provisions to strengthen the role of Emergency Financial Managers he came under fierce personal attack. One law professor (!) even compared our popularly elected Governor with the despot King George III. Maybe such attacks garner media attention and campaign donations (or why else do they persist?), but it sure makes it hard for differing political parties to come together on the next difficult policy issues (witness the current name-calling and fear-mongering on Medicare reform).

Words Matter

Perhaps our democratic system is broken, though I hope not. Perhaps people feel so disenfranchised that they feel they have nothing to lose, or can't get any attention, unless they resort to screaming, derogatory personal comments, or outrageous claims. Fortunately, my experience in Owosso is that most people want to trust one another, find the good, and support solutions to the problems facing the community. However, one or two misplaced words can turn a conversation into an argument, corrode public trust, and lead to democratic paralysis. On the other hand, starting conversations with a question, listening to the full answer, and saying a few words of respect or even kindness can strengthen the relationships we all depend on.

Change is Coming to Lansing

"If you want something different, don't keep doing things the same way," was how Doug Rothwell put it at the December 13 Summit of the Center for Michigan and the Business Leaders for Michigan. This was on the same day that Rothwell was named to be the new chair of the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC) by Governor-Elect Rick Snyder and outgoing Governor Jennifer Granholm who took the unprecedented step of jointly appointing a mostly new board to run MEDC. I was fortunate to be at the Summit, and I came away inspired and a little anxious after Rick Snyder spoke to the audience. Change is coming to Lansing, and the implications for elected officials and engaged citizens are profound.

"We are going to be bold" said the new Governor, and while he recognized that turning around the economy of Michigan will require a marathon of persistence, "our sprint will be at the beginning, not the end of the race." I have known Rick Snyder for several years now, and while he has a reputation of being cool and cerebral (i.e. a nerd), he was more fired up and passionate in this speech than I have ever seen him. "Get ready" he said, "it is time to stand up." While his speech was short on specifics, the day was filled with numerous speakers, and here are some things I think we need to prepare for:

Jobs and Economic Development were the #1 issue on everyone's mind. A first step was the remaking of the MEDC, and the Governor-elect and several Republican speakers stressed that government does not create jobs. The Michigan Business Tax (MBT) will be reformed in significant ways, but it also sounds like that specific tax incentives and other industry-targetted economic development efforts will be abandoned, or at least de-emphasized. Doug Rothwell noted that Michigan has the 48^th most burdensome business income tax among states. While he said that cutting taxes is not a long-term economic development strategy, in the short term state government has limited options to spur new private investment quickly. And, a big cut in business taxes would also get Michigan international attention because it is unexpected.

A business location specialist, Ron Pallina, who is author of a new book, Selling out a Superpower, said "We need to understand that we are competing with other nations. Companies say, 'we want to stay in US, but for us to stay here we need the least cost environment.' Today business location is a case of economic survival." His top three recommendations for Michigan: lower corporate taxes, create a right-to-work state, and foster more cohesion in the economic development team of elected officials, MEDC, and local economic development teams. "Michigan is not as well coordinated or speedy in its response to the need of employers."

Doug Rothwell also called for state investment in business incubators: "We need entrepreneurialism to grow our economy, but it takes time."

Budget Reforms. Michigan faces a $1.5 billion structural budget deficit in the coming year, and there will be short-term pain in addressing it. No one talked specifics, but I fear for the impacts on local revenue sharing which represents 25% of the City of Owosso's revenues. A lot of attention was given to the cost of public employees. This is a particular challenge for local governments, where employee compensation represents a majority of their costs; for the state, labor costs are only about 10% of the budget. Legacy costs for retired workers are also a looming challenge that could "eat up the entire stream of new revenues" according to Jeff Guilfoyle of the Citizens Research Council. There are $50 billion in unfunded pension and health commitments in the State, which is equivalent to $5,000 for every Michigan resident.

Solutions for budget reforms centered around multi-year budgeting and shared services. Robert Daddow of Oakland County advocates for the State to go to a multi-year budget. This will provide more stability, certainty, and understanding, especially to local governments and school districts. Oakland County has a three year budget. It gives local leaders more time to realize savings and solve problems; it spurs long-term thinking and avoids one-time budget fixes and gimmicks. Also, he stressed the importance of local governments to provide timely accounting reports to board and the public on a monthly, quarterly, and annual basis. This year Owosso started providing detailed budget reports on a monthly basis; our budget however is an annual one.

Jack Poll, Mayor of Wyoming, the second largest city in Kent County, stated his belief that local governments can achieve cost savings and efficiencies through shared services. He cited the opportunities and challenges with doing this around firefighting services in Kent County. The primary stumbling block is reaching agreement on the desired, or acceptable, level of service. "We need an effective model and standard to measure ourselves against," he said in asking for the State to help facilitate service sharing. "We need to get the legislature to clear the decks to allow for inter-municipal cooperation."

Education. Mike Flanagan, Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State of Michigan, believes that local school districts should share services too. He does not see a need for the consolidation of local districts, but recommends that non-instructional services such as transportation be delivered by intermediate service districts. He also suggested putting in place statewide health insurance, benefits, and a salary schedule. He said that these changes would allow local boards and administration to focus on student achievement, rather than on labor issues and the delivery of services.

Beyond this discussion, there was little attention given to K-12 education. Rather, there were several calls for increased investment in early childhood education, which provides significant long-term benefits for kids. For every dollar invested in early childhood education, $17 will be returned in lower services and increased revenues. Higher education was also touted. John Austin of the Brookings Institute reported that Michigan is 50^th in the relative share of state budget allocations to higher education. He recommended that we leverage our world-class institutions for economic growth, citing the positive examples of the Research Triangle in North Carolina and Austin, Texas. "Universities are engines for local economic development, the growth of the state, and our global competitiveness."

Place-Making. John Austin also called for investments in the quality of life in Michigan. He noted that the growing regions of the country have world-class cities with culture, good transportation infrastructure, and a talented workforce . He also called for investments in our natural assets as a way to retain and attract an educated workforce: "Michigan is a beautiful state, but the beaches have got to be clean and the parks need to be open; Colorado has had great influx of talented people because of its natural resources. Our youth, our college graduates want to be part of sustainable communities and work in green industries; they do not perceive Michigan as a place for this – in fact, we have been antagonistic."

Bi-Partisanship. The day ended with a call for cooperation and action. Democratic State Senator John Gleason said that it was "time to put blame aside. Now is a unique opportunity for the State of Michigan. We have been too partisan in the Legislature. We cannot put forth our best effort because of the peripheral powers and parochial interests." Republican Jase Bolger, the new Speaker of the House, said that "our problems are too profound to let partisanship get in the way." Governor-elect Rick Snyder called all legislators "my partners" after being thanked by the Democrats for his efforts to reach out to them.

The next Governor also stressed that the reform efforts were not just about government. "We all need to work together," he said. And Phil Power, the visionary force behind the Center for Michigan, called on us to be "all in for Michigan." Given these strong statements, the seriousness of the problems before us, and the passionate commitment of Governor-elect Rick Snyder, I anticipate some radical changes in government in the year ahead. Whatever our line of work or effort, private or public, we need to be clear about our own mission and look for ways to move forward with new partners. It is said that the Chinese character for crisis is the combination of chaos and opportunity. I think there will be lots of both.

Local Democracy is the Answer

The mid-term election is over; now what? The Republicans, conservatives, and tea party activists are happy; the Democrats, liberals, and progressives are disappointed. However, if either side thinks there will be major change, for either good or bad, in Washington they are wrong. Whether your side “won” or “lost” in this election, you will not be successful in promoting your ideology unless you become active on the local level. It is time for all of us to get busy in our community.

Republican leader John Boehner said on Tuesday night that his party’s task will be “leading the drive for a smaller, less costly, and more accountable government here in Washington DC.” While voter dissatisfaction gave Republicans more seats in Congress, the federal bureaucracy will persist unless conservatives can show Americans how to get by without it.

Americans have shown repeatedly, as they did just two years ago in the Presidential election, that they want a better country. If the Republican party desires to rule in 2012 and beyond, they need to provide a way for Americans to work together for positive change. The tea party reminds us that the Constitution limits the federal government, but that document was written in an era where people banded together in their communities to help one another and looked to state government to regulate commerce. Times have changed in two hundred years, and if we want to return to a federal government envisioned by our founding fathers, we need to increase the capacity of cities, counties and states to solve the problems of today.

The Democrats were beaten in this election, but they are not going away because what motivates them transcends any particular vote. Their commitment to public education, helping those in need, protecting the environment, or other causes gives liberals the drive to create change. Democrats are successful when they show voters how government can effectively address these big issues. They did not make that case on Tuesday.

If Democrats want to regain power, they need to convince more people of the importance of their causes. More importantly, they need to show that government has some ability to solve problems. That is not going to happen at the federal level in the next two years. Progressive-minded activists need to work in their community so that more people understand and come to share their passion for change.

The electorate is angry, cynical and increasingly non-participatory. Less than half of the registered voters in Shiawassee County chose to exercise their constitutional right to vote last week. If either Democrats, Republicans, or independents hope that our democracy will continue to be an effective form of government, we all need to work to restore faith in government and the elected officials who represent us. “All politics are local” said the late congressman Tip O’Neil; thus the best place to start to re-engage voters is at the local level.

So, if you are either celebrating or bemoaning the election, its time to go work in your community. You can take action at the personal, organizational, and/or governmental levels. Personally, we should all try to live out in both word and action our convictions. If you feel like the federal government has failed to stimulate the economy, then think hard about how you might start a business, become involved in the work of the Chamber of Commerce, or at least shop locally. Or if you are frustrated that Congress failed to enact climate change legislation, then commit more fully to a green lifestyle, both as a way to reduce energy use and as an example others.

American history has shown that when people come together they can accomplish great things. Our voluntary sector is better organized than any other country, but they need to step up to the real issues facing the country. If you are opposed to Obama-care, then go to work to start a free clinic for those in our community who are uninsured, or volunteer for Respite or take time off work to help your elderly neighbor who needs help. If you support the health care reform efforts, then go to work to support Memorial Healthcare as a donor or volunteer. The key to health care in our community will be our local hospital, and its independence will be challenged by the health care reforms coming down the road.

Finally, get involved with your school, township, city or county government. That can mean service in an elected or appointed capacity, or it can just mean a willingness to work on making local government more effective. I have come to learn on the Owosso City Council that seven elected officials do not create change in our community; we can only help open doors so that the community can come together to support new businesses, build a new theater, or develop a dog park. Perhaps the best opportunity locally right now is for people to become active in one of the several planning efforts underway that will help chart the future of our community.

Democracy is a participation sport, and neither Democrats nor Republicans, nor any other party, will be successful at governance unless citizens feel like they can participate effectively in government, create positive change in their community, and thus make this a better country. Get involved.

A shorter version of this appeared in the Argus Press on November 6, 2010

How Best to get a Public Opinion

I want to ask your opinion about asking your opinion. Since before I was elected, I have sought out public input through this blog, a facebook page, e-mail updates, and purposeful encounters with the electorate. Seven months into my tour of service I have come to appreciate the questions, suggestions, and feedback. However, the June 21 meeting of the Owosso City Council has raised some questions for me about the role of public opinion in local government.

You may have been at the meeting, or read about the big discussion of the plan of the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) to convert south M-52 to a three lane highway. MDOT has proceeded with this plan because of a request from the City of Owosso several years ago, and because their experience has shown that single lane roads with a center turn lane are safer than highways with two lanes in each direction. However, there has been a large and vociferous expression of public opinion in Owosso against this plan, and the City Council voted 4-3 to request MDOT to keep M-52 a four-lane road. The final decision will be MDOT’s to make.

I voted against this recommendation, but I support the decision of the Council. Since then, I have been thinking a lot about my role as your representative and how to best consider public opinion. I think there are four key choices to be made, or balances to be achieved, and I welcome your input on any or all of them.

Expert Opinion versus Popular Opinion. The difference between these two was stark on the issue of M-52’s restriping. The meeting started with a traffic safety engineer from MDOT presenting data and analysis showing three lanes would result in 25 to 40 percent less accidents and would do so without any decline in level of service (i.e. no backups or delays. Her professional opinion from 14 years of experience was in favor of the three lane idea. Popular opinion was contrary and strong, with over 20 people making public comments against the three-lane proposal. The choice was clear: listen to the informed, expert opinion or go with the frequently expressed opinion of Owosso voters.

As a City Council representative, I find this kind of choice difficult. I believe that my job is to make decisions that are in the best interest of the City, and when a large number of people speak out against (or for) a policy, I want to heed their will. On the other hand, I know that many of the issues we face are complex, with significant financial, legal, or technical issues to consider. For this reason, I tend to give weight to comments made by informed experts, whether that be our experienced City Manager, legally trained City Attorney, or MDOT traffic engineer. Likewise, I tend to give extra attention to testimony made by members of the public when they clearly have experience with an issue. For instance, I listen closely to a youth baseball coach when upgrades to our ball fields are being considered. But how much weight should we give to one expert as opposed to the input of many interested voters?

Direct Democracy versus Representative Government. The idea that everyone has a voice is a bedrock of American democracy and the right to vote. Since we cherish the right to vote, there is a popular idea that key local issues should be put to a vote of the public. Someone suggested that the M-52 lane decision be on the ballot, there have been letters to the editor suggesting that all tax and fee increases be voted on by the public, and there is strong public opinion that any change in burning regulations be put to a vote.

What local issues should be voted on? Or, if it were possible to take a poll on every issue, how should the results be used? On the M-52 issue, it was suggested that the results of a Facebook query should guide the City Council decision. Small local governments in New England still use a town hall meeting, where all voters in attendance at an annual meeting are given a vote to approve the budget and make key decisions. If public opinion should carry the day on local decisions, what is the most effective and equitable way to measure that public opinion?

When I was younger I lived in California and was excited about the use there of ballot measures to decide matters of public policy. At the local level, the propositions on each ballot were given a letter starting with “A” and one time we got to vote on Propostions X, Y, Z, and AA. Quickly, not only did the number of decisions become overwhelming. I also learned that local and state governments had difficulties responding to changing circumstance, because laws adopted as a ballot proposition could only be modified or repealed by another vote.

Instead of lots of public votes, Michigan laws and Owosso practice tilt toward representative democracy. That is, the local electorate chooses seven City Council members who are given the job of making decisions for the entire community. As your representatives, we take the time to read a lengthy board packet of material twice a month, conduct additional research on issues, attend meetings and listen to public testimony. We take into consideration a variety of opinions, and try and make a decision that we believe to be in the best interest of the community. We are not required to poll the citizens, or give every voice equal weight, or even listen to input outside of meetings. But all of us value public input. The questions are two: how do we best get input? And what should we do with the input we get (especially when it conflicts)?

Voiced Opinion versus the Interests of the Unrepresented. I am committed to the idea that public input is desirable and necessary, but am not sure how best to determine the will of the electorate. Or do we need to seek it out at all? City Council meetings are open and the public is given the opportunity to speak both at the beginning and the end of the meeting (although State law only calls for one place on the agenda for input). In addition, certain actions require a public hearing to be held. Are these comment periods sufficient opportunity for public input, or should we seek out more?

Over 20 people spoke at the meeting when we considered the M-52 issue, and all of them spoke in favor of keeping the highway at four lanes. It was pointed out that there are thousands more residents in Owosso that did not speak; do we need to try and guess at their interests? I heard from several people who favored the three-lane proposal, but who did not speak at the meeting; should we consider their opinion? In addition, several people who spoke at the meeting reported that they did not live in Owosso, but they had businesses or owned property in the City. Should we consider their opinion more or less than an Owosso voter? What about those who do not know they have an interest in the issue or cannot speak? In this case, who is speaking for the victims of automobile accidents that might be prevented? In other cases, such as investments in our water system, who is speaking for the future residents of Owosso, who may not even be born yet?

Quantity versus Quality. The final balancing to consider is between the volume of public opinion and the content of the input provided. When a lot of people speak out on an issue, and speak out forcefully, I take notice. If people care enough about an issue to take time to come to a City Council meeting, we should listen to what they have to say. At the June 21 meeting, the Council voted to extend the 30 minutes normally allotted to public comment so that everyone would have an opportunity to be heard. On the other hand, when opinions are repeated frequently they start to become statistics, with so many “for” and so many “against.” How much public testimony is enough?

Typically, at public hearings I find myself listening for new information, novel arguments, or a perspective not yet shared. While I welcome all public input, I find a conversation with a voter more valuable than a brief comment or a long harangue. If several people are involved in the give and take of an extended dialogue on a topic, I tend to learn more about an issue. My recent invitation to “Walk and Talks” on the day of City Council meetings have produced some good discussions; interestingly the one on June 21 had people favoring a three-lane approach.

None of Us Alone is as Smart as All of Us Together. In the end, as I think about public opinion, I come back to a commitment to open, representative democracy and a belief in the wisdom of teams. I think it unworkable, and probably unwise, to put every issue up to a public vote or for the City Council to depend solely on the counting of public opinions. The democratic process that chooses seven people to make decisions for the entire City has proven to be a good method for soliciting, weighing, and evaluating public opinion. However, the process only works well if every elected official is open to receiving input from a variety of viewpoints, and if they are committed to listening with an open mind to that input. I believe that the members of the current City Council have this commitment.

Importantly, each Councilmember comes from a different background and has a unique set of acquaintances and a network of contacts. Sometimes the uniqueness of a councilmember comes through as an individual bias for or against certain public policy issues. However, with seven representatives soliciting input and measuring public attitudes, we are likely to get not only a variety of voices, but a variety of perspectives from which to evaluate the opinion of the public. Most importantly, the success of representative democracy depends on the willingness of the seven member of the City Council to honestly share their interpretations of the public interest and to debate one another on the merits of the issue. It also requires a councilmember to recognize that they are sometimes wrong in their decision, or at least be willing to accept the decision of the majority.

In the end, and most of the time, I believe the shared decision-making responsibility of our local government both reflects well on the full range of opinion and serves the best interest of Owosso. I believe that the present City Council desires to represent all of the public fairly and, most importantly, wants to serve well the future of our community.

Your Opinion Sought. On this, as with all issues, I welcome your input. I have posed several questions, and while I have tried to answer some of them, I am interested in your opinion. How should the Council best gauge the public interest?