Latest in a series of posts on City Government

Olga Negron, “Your View by Bethlehem councilwoman: Want to help democracy? Serve on a government board.” Morning Call, August 31, 2019.

There were so many interesting things at the last City Council meeting that Gadfly hasn’t been able to deal with them all. And here we are on the verge of another meeting!

So let’s finish up (ha! or nearly finish up — Gadfly never shuts up) the thread on the interesting discussion on reappointments to the City Authorities, Boards, and Commissions — what Gadfly calls the ABCs.

Councilwomen Van Wirt and Negron were beating the drum for “new blood” especially on certain committees.

That caused Council newcomer Grace Crampsie Smith to ask the Mayor if he had a list of people waiting to serve — a waiting list.

The Mayor’s answer was that there was a list and that the City was doing pretty well, especially in comparison to Allentown, in staffing the ABCs. The Mayor periodically puts out an invitation for people to express interest in serving, and there are currently very few open slots.

If there is to be new blood, we have to seek it, we have to let people know.

Virtually immediately after the meeting, the Mayor posted such an invitation on the City web site and Facebook page:

Appointments are available for Bethlehem residents who may be interested in serving on one of our various authorities, boards, and commissions! Please review the following link for information specific to each of them: https://www.bethlehem-pa.gov/…/Authorities-Boards-and-Commi… Interested candidates are encouraged to send their letter of interest and resume to the Office of the Mayor at wkarras@bethlehem-pa.gov

As for incentive to serve, Gadfly points you to Councilwoman Negron’s article linked here and at the top of this page:

I’m here to tell you that our city needs your civic engagement.

There are many, other extremely important nonelected positions in local government that need to be filled by volunteers.

It’s important to know that not all positions require a specific expertise; most just require a dedicated person with common sense and love for our city who is willing to be the voice of their community.

The people in our city have diverse voices, and what we need is more of that diversity working in our government. That’s why I’m reaching out to challenge every single one of you to get civically engaged, to share your talents and put them to work for the betterment of our city.

A functioning democracy requires citizens who care what their government is doing and who put the time in to make it work for them.

Gadfly’s been hearing from people who watch the Council and other meetings on video and has noted several people who came once to a Council meeting to see what they were like and have continued to come.

I know I got hooked.

Think about what you’d like to do, wouldya?

Latest in a series of posts on City Government

Gadfly’s been wondering if a different dynamic in the leadership of the
[Parking Authority} Board would be beneficial.
Gadfly 10:30am today

Well, yes.

Interestingly, Councilwoman Crampsie Smith transitioned from her comments on the Parking Authority nominee at the February 4 Council meeting right into the topic of term limits, the possibility thereof as pertinent to this discussion on reappointments.

And there followed a good interchange.

President Waldron said he was open to the conversation on term limits but not ad hoc at this time on individual nominations. He looked forward to conversation about a policy that everybody would be on board with.

The right response.

When the agenda moved to a reappointment on the Fine Arts Commission, President Waldron wondered if term limits would apply there.

A good question. If there were a policy on term limits, would it be a blanket policy? And, on the face of it, that would not seem to make sense.

Councilwoman Van Wirt jumped on that question, indicating that the prime ABC targets for term limits would be those that have the “power of the purse.”

A good response.

So President Waldron closed this thread agreeing and expressing that he was open to such a conversation.

A quick search indicates that the current Parking Authority Board Chair may have been in place since 2008, and one of the current Board members may have served since at least 2006.

to be continued . . .

Latest in a series of posts on City Government

Gadfly would like to go back to the significant thread from the February 4 Council meeting he was pursuing relating to Council’s important responsibility to approve appointments to the City Authorities, Boards, and Commissions (the ABCs).

Last Monday we focused on the dramatically contrasting views of Councilwoman Van Wirt and Councilman Callahan on the general role of Council in the approval process — Councilwoman Van Wirt arguing for close Council oversight of appointments and for citizen advocates as ABC members, Councilman Callahan arguing for acquiescing to the Mayor’s appointments except in exceptional circumstances.

This focus in their interaction regarding an appointment to the Bethlehem Authority was general, big picture. Later, in regard to the appointment to the Parking Authority, however, the focus was much narrower. Here according to Councilwoman Van Wirt was a specific ABC that was not functioning properly, not functioning openly in the best interest of the City, and visibly in need of the citizen advocate kind of representation that she advocated in her previous comments.

Councilwoman Van Wirt’s specific example was the August 28, 2019, meeting of the Parking Authority Board to approve the retail and residential element of the Polk Street garage. The BPA had asked the City to evaluate design proposals, an ad hoc city committee was appointed, and that committee reported in favor of one of the proposals. At the August 28 meeting the Board — with City ad hoc committee members present but unheard from and even unacknowledged — went into its two-minute drill (it actually “scored” in 1:50 according to time-keeper Gadfly’s precision calculation) and accepted the other proposal. Gadfly found the action rather outrageous and refers you to his “just had to get this off his chest” post in which he prints a statement he made before the Board at their September 25 meeting.

It’s a beaut.

• The Parking Authority has a huge public perception problem.
• The time has come for a community advocate to be appointed to the Parking Authority.
• I would like to see somebody from the Southside even appointed to the Parking Authority.
• There was nobody there [the vote on Polk Street mentioned above] who was listening to what the committee had to say.
• This exemplifies exactly why I’m pushing and Olga’s pushing for community representation on that Board.
• No discussion happened.
• At least have a vigorous, informed discussion.
• Nobody on that Board stuck up their hand and said anything.
• It is not about [the nominee] personally, it is about the fact that the Board does not represent the needs of the citizens of Bethlehem.
• It’s time to have new people on there.
• There isn’t anybody putting their hand up and saying what about what’s best for the City and the citizens of Bethlehem.

Councilwoman Van Wirt was followed by Councilwoman Crampsie Smith, the newest member of Council. Laudably, recognizing the sensitivity of this appointment to this ABC, Councilwoman Crampsie Smith took initiative and talked with the nominee before the meeting. She was satisfied with her conversation and indicated she would vote for the nominee based on his reputation for integrity (well founded) and because of his experience on the Board with the Polk Street Garage development still in the works.

Gadfly applauds Councilwoman Crampsie Smith for making personal contact with the nominee, but the flaw in her reasoning that he sees is that there is no evidence of the nominee’s experience with, involvement with the deliberations on the Polk Street Garage. On what evidence of the nominee’s tenure on the Board besides attendance records did the Councilwoman have on which to base her judgment?

The answer is none. None was provided to her.

This has been Gadfly’s point.

Board members may be present at meetings, but you need to scratch hard to find any contributions they make. There is little or no visible indication of their thinking about, of their understanding of issues.

That’s why Gadfly has been asking for evidence based on performance when reappointments occur.

Without such evidence, it is not reasonable to assume that just because the nominee was “there” then that he will be valuable now and in the future.

Gadfly has been thinking a lot about this. He would like to say clearly with the Council people that he is not impugning the integrity of the reappointment nominees. They are good people. In the case of the Parking Authority, however, with which Gadfly is most familiar, Gadfly wonders if the “fault” is in the administrative style. Gadfly doesn’t sense that some Board members are invited to play significant roles. From Gadfly’s experience, there is not much discussion of issues, and decisions and directions seemed to be already decided and brought to the Board simply for a ratification vote.

There is voting but not discussion.

Gadfly’s been wondering if a different dynamic in the leadership of the Board would be beneficial.

to be continued . . .

Latest in a series of posts on City Government

Gadfly,

I agree with your assessment on appointment vs. re-appointment.

I think the number one thing that should be assessed on a re-appointment is a board member’s attendance record. If there were, say, ten meetings each year, how many did the re-appointee attend over their term?

Second, should be the availability of other interested residents. Councilwoman Crampsie-Smith pursued this with the Mayor. The Mayor informed her that he receives resumes. Perhaps someone should have gone a step further and inquired about those resumes. How many do you have and how many have expressed an interest in serving on a particular board?

Make no mistake about it, this kind of service by residents is exemplary, and it truly is public service. However, when the same people are constantly re-appointed over decades, it prevents new ideas and energy from becoming part of the authority/board/commission landscape.

We complain about elected officials making careers out of their elected positions, so many want to see term limits instituted. Bethlehem’s Mayor is term limited. Other city elected positions should be. Certainly there should be at higher levels of government.

When it comes to the ABCs, perhaps those that have valuable talents could be moved to other boards so that additional utilization of those talents could be achieved across these other organizations as well, while bringing fresh blood into the boards.

Dana Grubb

Latest in a series of posts on City Government

What were you thinking as you listened to the audio in the last post from the February 4 discussion on ABC reappointments at the Council meeting?

Gadfly thought this short 5-minute diametrically opposed interchange between Councilmembers Van Wirt and Callahan certainly a key moment.

Councilwoman Van Wirt argues for Council oversight of appointments and for citizen advocates as members, Councilman Callahan for acquiescing to the Mayor’s appointments except in exceptional circumstances.

Where do you stand? With whom do you side? How do you see it?

• Councilwoman Van Wirt says the ABCs are a “huge source of power,” often a “cloaked power,” and asks for more citizen advocate types, perhaps people who represent a different geographic area or have a different point of view. She talks of Council’s obligation to represent the citizens, which may mean putting “new blood” on the ABCs — making clear (as everybody will do) that criticisms have nothing personal to do with the individuals nominated, who are to be thanked for their service.
• Councilman Callahan says elections have consequences, the Mayor has prerogatives regarding appointments, Council should defer to the Mayor as a courtesy, and it’s hard to remember, except for this year, Council turning down mayoral nominees. He alludes to reasons that are more personal, perhaps political in questioning appointments.
• Councilwoman Van Wirt answers that the Council’s role is oversight, to counterbalance the Mayor, and calls for representatives with different views and views not traditionally represented. “Just because we have been doing this for perpetuity does not mean it is the right way and should continue.”
• Councilman Callahan calls again for respecting the Mayor’s decision and choice especially since there is no issue with this respected and experienced nominee.

Gadfly would point out two things:

1) There is a difference between appointment and reappointment. He can see going along with a mayoral “appointment” (a la Mr. Callahan) in the vast majority of the cases but would opt for strict oversight in “reappointment.”

2) He would hope the Mayor would agree with the kind of representation that Councilwoman Van Wirt advocates so that there would be no tension between them on the issue of the kind of person best serving the City on the hot-button ABCs.

Would you want to weigh in?

to be continued  . . .

Latest in a series of posts on City Government

So the issue of reappointments to the ABCs — the City’s resident-staffed Authorities, Boards, and Commissions that do so much vital City work — generated an interesting and important discussion that ranged through Council’s role in the process, the need for evidence for reappointment, the periodic need for new blood, and the possible value of term limits for members on certain ABCs.

You know that one of Gadfly’s goals is to help you know your Councilmembers better. Councilman Reynolds was absent (death of his father) and Councilman Colon made only one brief tangential comment, but discussion by the others elicited some clear examples of thought processes and distinguishing viewpoints.

Gadfly will break the discussion down into segments for emphasis and analysis in subsequent posts, but he always recommends going to the primary sources to form your own opinions first. So, to enable you to do that he has spliced together (awkwardly perhaps) the pertinent sections of the entire interesting and important discussion on reappointments.

Note that though there was contesting of the reappointment process, all mayoral nominations were approved, and all parties made clear that the nominees were good people who have given long service to the City — nothing negative was said against any nominee personally. To the contrary, they were thanked for service. We are talking about process not personalities here.

In fact, as prologue, you might want to listen to Gadfly’s public comment on this matter at the beginning of the February 4 Council meeting that sets up the discussion that follows by focusing on Council’s important oversight responsibility:

Ok, now here is the complete spliced-together commentary by Council members during the body of the meeting with a summary table of contents, if you will, for easy access and review.

There has been concern lately about Council dynamics and decorum. No problem here, thought Gadfly. There is strong passion but within limits. Especially notable is Councilman Callahan’s even manner and low-key tone. And though he walks up to the edge of personal comment at one point, he doesn’t “go there.” Well done.

What do you think are the key moments, the key parts of this discussion of reappointments of ABC members? Do a little homework, then c’mon back, and next time we’ll discuss.

• In public comment, Gadfly argues for the need for evidence from performance for the reappointment votes coming up. He points out that approving ABC appointments is one of the three great Council responsibilities. He points especially to the Parking Authority. (See audio above too)
• 3:50: the Mayor nominates someone for the Bethlehem Authority.
• 4:10: Councilwoman Negron points out that the nominee has been around for a long time serving in many capacities and wishes in effect, for some new faces rather than recirculating the same people, “the same names floating around.”
• 5:40: Councilwoman Van Wirt says the ABCs are a “huge source of power,” often a “cloaked power,” and asks for more citizen advocate types, perhaps people who represent a different geographic area or have a different point of view. She talks of Council’s obligation to represent the citizens, which may mean putting “new blood” on the ABCs — making clear (as everybody will do) that criticisms have nothing personal to do with the individuals nominated, who are to be thanked for their service.
• 7:25: Councilwoman Crampsie Smith asks the Mayor about people wanting to be on the ABCs, about waiting lists, about current vacancies. The Mayor indicates there are few vacancies, he does have a list of interested people, and he has nominated that Bethlehem Authority nominee for his expertise.
• 9:05: In response to President Waldron, Councilwoman Van Wirt clarifies that “lack of turnover” not the individual is the problem.
• 9:30: Councilwoman Negron indicates we need to make a stronger effort to reach out to people. It’s time for “new blood.” New people rather than moving the long-serving people around.
• 9:45: President Waldron sees nothing against this nominee, no reason to vote against him just to get new blood.
• 11:40: Councilman Callahan says elections have consequences, the Mayor has prerogatives regarding appointments, Council should defer to the Mayor as a courtesy, and it’s hard to remember, except for this year, Council turning down mayoral nominees. He alludes to reasons that are more personal, perhaps political in questioning appointments.
• 13:05: Councilwoman Van Wirt answers that the Council’s role is oversight, to counterbalance the Mayor, and calls for representatives with different views and views not traditionally represented. “Just because we have been doing this for perpetuity does not mean it is the right way and should continue.”
• 13:47: Councilman Callahan calls again for respecting the Mayor’s decision and choice especially since there is no issue with this respected and experienced nominee.
• 14:27: The Mayor nominates someone to the Parking Authority.
• 14:45: Councilwoman Negron repeats the idea of Council role as check and balance and the obligation to the people to not just be a rubber stamp (while expressing dissatisfaction with the committee roles she’s been assigned on Council).
• 17:00: Councilwoman Van Wirt focuses on the Parking Authority, which has a “huge public perception problem.” “The time has come for a community advocate to be appointed” and “even somebody from the Southside.” She makes a spirited explanation of her negative experience with and feelings about the Parking Authority.
• 19:28: Councilwoman Crampsie Smith, sensitive to the importance of this appointment, indicates that she spoke with the nominee, elicited his awareness of the need for communication and transparency, and will vote for him because she thinks his experience on the Board and his good reputation will be good for the big things that are happening. Interestingly, she broaches the idea of turnover and even term limits.
• 21: 18: President Waldron picks up the idea of term limits from Crampsie Smith as something he’s open to discuss, though not in terms of individual nominees now before Council but a policy that everybody can get behind.
• 23:00: The mayor submits another nominee, this time for an ABC that is not a hot-button.
• 23:20: President Waldron asks about the length of this nominee’s service on this “cool” ABC, which implicitly raises the question of whether all ABCs would have to be subject to term limits if we had them (which would seem absurd), questioning whether we need “new blood” on such committees as these (less likely).
• 23:42: Councilwoman Van Wirt has an answer. It’s the ABCs “that wield the power of the purse” that would be focused on.
• 24:27 President Waldron gets that point.

to be continued . . .