In advance of the second Public Safety Work Session on Monday night (March 7th) I have a few notes which I've already shared with all City Council members about the plan for the evening. For full transparency, I'm sharing it with you as well so that no one's surprised at the meeting.
Consensus Reconsideration
Toward the end of the council work session regarding public safety on 2/21, I had asked for a council consensus on whether the council wished to continue “status quo” or to consider reform. The consensus was for status quo, but since that time, a council member has expressed to me (without my prompting) that he would like to discuss the PS-22 proposal in the next work session. This member was one of those who had joined the consensus for status quo.
Though Robert’s Rules don’t strictly apply here because no vote was taken, I am going to treat this member's desire to discuss the PS-22 plan as a request to reconsider the consensus on PSO status quo. Per Robert's Rules (§ 37), this would only be an appropriate request for someone who had been on the prevailing side to make, and it has to occur at the next applicable meeting (both of which are true in this case.)
The Plan for Monday Evening 3/7
In the council packet for the March 7th Public Safety work session, I’m including the two documents I created regarding the PS-22 Plan for consideration, as requested by several council members. To be completely transparent, at the start of the work session, I’ll re-ask for a consensus on status quo, using identical language to what I used in the Feb 21st work session. If that consensus is broken, then we’ll have the opportunity to discuss the PS-22 plan or other reform measures if council desires, and work toward a consensus for the way ahead.
We’ll have a little more than an hour available at the March 7th work session to discuss next steps; the firefighter-specific physical agility standards have been resolved on 2/21 (in favor of “no change”). Several other reform items would remain for discussion that evening, including the future of the Public Safety Director position, and council’s desires for a review of the program, and how it should be reviewed. Also, a council member had requested that Police Chief Berte present the actual cost differentials between the current model and a fully-separated police and fire (no PSO) model; Chief Berte will be ready to present that information in the work session if asked.
An additional note on "Acting Public Safety Director"
Section 2-920 of the city code is clear about appointing an acting director, once Director Olson retires this month:
“Whenever the director of public safety services is out of the city, or unable to act on account of sickness or for any other reason, including those periods of time when the city administrator has not appointed a director of public safety services, the director of public safety services or city administrator shall appoint one of the division heads as the acting director of public safety services. This designee shall have and exercise all the powers and duties of the director.”
This means that there is no decision for the Council or Mayor to make here; the City Administrator will appoint either the Police Chief or Fire Chief as the Acting Public Safety Director until such time that the position is filled or the council decides to make the position a supplemental duty. I just wanted to pre-empt any misconceptions here.
A Final Note
I pledged during this most recent mayor campaign that, if elected, I would bring my reform ideas (the PS-22 proposal) to the City Council for deliberation. Ultimately it’s the council majority’s call for how to proceed. If Council permits me to bring those ideas forward for discussion Monday night, I’ll do my best to explain why I’m making the proposal, so that council can consider them and (hopefully) build a consensus on the way forward.
I will have fulfilled my campaign pledge if I do my utmost to have those ideas heard and considered, regardless of the final outcome. I rarely make pledges, so this is a matter of integrity for me to follow through with what I said I would do. Quite a few residents have been encouraging me to drop the matter entirely because there's not an overwhelming council sentiment in favor of reform. To me, that's irrelevant -- ignoring a pledge or promise isn’t in my programming. I'm looking forward (hopefully) to a thoughtful discussion on Monday at 5:20 in the Community Center. I hope you'll tune in or attend in person so that you can follow along first-hand.
Thanks for reading to the end and for doing the hard work to be an informed and engaged citizen.