If You Were Trying...

These four words are the beginning of a thought exercise, perhaps even a litmus test. This exercise ends with "what would you do differently?" Most of the fun is in the middle. For example, "If you were trying to create a failed government, what would you do differently?" You could ask this any day, any time at Dunwoody City hall of anyone you bump into. What makes it an exercise is that you'll never get an answer from anyone on the payroll. 

A more topical thought exercise is "if you were trying to convince the public this government is corrupt, what would you do differently?" This relates to the longstanding use of personal communication channels for official city business. This gives the impression of a culture of backroom dealings, and underhanded under the table negotiations where the well connected are, well, connected. And you aren't. And since it is all off the books you'll have a damn hard time even finding out what is really going down (spoiler alert: it ain't your taxes) and apparently the folks down at city hall really like it that way with the mayor enjoying the practice for a decade.

Well at least until they were called to task and then someone pointed out these clandestine, covert practices are uncommon and in many jurisdictions verboten. So now they're fixin' to git ready to start thinkin' 'bout doin' somethin'. Bless their little hearts. But you would be wise to NOT hold your breath waiting on this city to do the right thing or come close to doing anything the right way. Just look at their track record.

Planning the Plan

A local retired US military officer who served in WWII and was involved in planning the D-Day invasion retained possession of his copy of those plans. As one might imagine these plans evolved over time as better G-2 became available and open issues were resolved. The Allies managed this development by issuing update packets containing revised pages and additional pages to plan holders who were instructed to remove and destroy updated pages. This particular officer never got around to destroying the superceded pages and consequently maintained not only a completed set of plans, but a historical trail of the creation of those plans.

He had the Plan of the Plan. 

While today's endeavors pale in comparison to That Day, we, through our public officials, do make plans that affect our daily lives.These plans evolve, and as they evolve the document that we commonly call "The Plan" goes through many drafts. Just as it is fascinating to see the development of a historical document it is even more revealing to see the progression of plans and other documents created on our behalf by our public servants.

We have one such work in progress before us today: the KPMG audit of DeKalb County Schools' finances. It would be very revealing to compare and contrast the currently available draft document with the final document to see what additional items surface, what items are changed and which are eliminated. It would be even more revealing to acquire copies of all correspondence between the System and KPMG related to this effort since it is very likely that many updates will be driven by those in the System responsible for "damage control".

A "Reasonable Man" would suggest that all documents, especially something as important as a financial audit, should be proactively made public. Though it briefly was posted online that was only after it had been "leaked" and it was subsequently removed. This is unacceptable. Government organizations, DeKalb Schools, the County and the City, must maintain full, proactive disclosure of all documents and communications related to the people's business. And let's be clear, they should be doing nothing but the people's business.

One final observation: KPMG seems to think they own all distribution rights for a work product that we, the taxpayers, purchased and perhaps, by contract, they do. If this is indeed the case then our public servants should never again be party to a contract with such anti-transparency clauses and if that means KPMG walks away from our money then so be it.

Parkway: The Real Problem

In a recent update a City Councilman hinted at a very real problem surfacing in the Parkway kerfuffle.

"... the City ran the risk of blacklisting from future grants if we cancelled the plan completely."

This is a clear statement that we are driven by an ambition to spend other people's money--by way of grants. We at The Other Dunwoody will not entertain the claptrap about how we pay the taxes that fund these grants, or "getting our share", or how if we don't get the grant someone else will. We will simply suggest you research "The Tragedy of the Commons" and start taking some ownership of America and not just your back yard.

This selfishness also blinds us to the key point underpinning this repavement project. Somehow we got backed into a corner and are now presented only with a Hobson's choice.

Now if this situation was created by, at the request of and with the approval of Council 1.0 in an open and transparent manner, then all is well and good and the time for carping and complaining is over. It is now time to act on the plan. If Council 1.0 instituted the plan, began execution and passed the baton to Council 2.0, it is incumbent upon the current Council to take that baton and run with it, not throw it down and whine.

But the carping and complaining remains ceaseless, even on Council, making one question whether Council 1.0 was very involved in the actions that precipitated the "future grant poison pill". If not, then who did this?

The obvious place to look, if you are not the Police Department, would be at those closest to the action: the bureaucrats down at City Hall. Did someone at City Hall take the steps constituting an irrevocable commitment? If so, who did this? Did they have standing authorization to make million dollar commitments on behalf of City taxpayers? If so, this should be fixed immediately.

If this was some deal based on bureaucratic "initiative", as many suspect with Project Renaissance, then Council needs to act, first to terminate the offending bureaucrats and then to amend the process to prevent future disasters.

Brookhaven Yes! To Run New City

It should come as no surprise, but the folks operating under the label "Brookhaven Yes!" will indeed be running the new city. As reported in the AJC they have established many a Task Force to assess various aspects of how the City will be run. But before you ask, the answer is: No, you cannot have access to any documents or meetings until and unless they bloody well feel like it.

You see, all that transparency stuff like open records requests and open meetings only applies to government operations, and Brookhaven Yes! isn't a government. Yet.

There are a few rays of hope. First, by not opening these meetings to the public and following the requirements that will soon be applied to the real city the members of this group who are running for political office may take a serious hit. Mistrust seems a significant factor in politics these days.

And the Governor, though he has yet to act and may be stalling, will appoint a commission to coordinate the efforts of city formation. At that point there will be a legitimate government entity involved and to the extent that entity does anything it will be subject to open meeting and records law. Or it will be subject to legal action.

To date these advocacy non-profits have been hiding behind their corporate shields. That is about to change.

Magic Carpet or Titanic Iceberg?

Concerning Dunwoody's Special Investigator's Report, which is it? A political "Magic Carpet" under which the real dirt is being swept or just the tip of the Iceberg regarding what has really been going on down at Smart City Hall? And what should we suppose has been going on? Well, that is hard to tell given the City is not very transparent in its operations. Certainly there are many questions deserving of answers.

But first a simple observation. There is no living, breathing, mysterious Sasquatch called "The City", but there are living, breathing people who individually take action on behalf of the collective entity called "The City". And they are, to greater and lesser degrees, individual players who are individually responsible for their individual actions on behalf of the collective. Recent events bear that out. When those actions are aligned with the good of the community and the goals established by our elected officials they deserve credit in proportion to their initiative and responsibility. Recent events bear that out as well. But in all matters they should be accountable and to that end the Citizens OF Dunwoody deserve transparency. We deserve answers.

Who initiated contact with Wieland and who specifically, City and Wieland were involved in the initial and following negotiations? Was this kicked off in a country club locker-room after a round of golf? During a rousing game of checkers at the local hardware store? Over coffee at the gas station or local BBQ joint? Via an open and transparent bidding process, because someone, yet to be named, at City Hall had an original, innovative idea? Was the City Attorney engaged to assess the legal propriety of these negotiations? Would it have mattered?

And who is it at City Hall that "suggests" changes to the developer, like "ditch the siding these need to be all-brick"? Who with the developer is suggesting that the City retain the flood plain property leaving only the juicy bits for lucrative development? How was it the plan went from detached construction to attached housing? Who, on both sides, is involved in these negotiations, and when and where have they and are they taking place? Who, on both sides, negotiates and approves the plan? Who is shaking hands over these agreements?

Where are the email and phone records, the meeting calendars and topics of discussion? Who attended the plenary meetings or was engaged in these conversations? What was the timing, especially with regards to the failure of the Parks Bonds and passage of the TAD? Was this always in the works or is it a reaction to voters shouting down the previous plans from City Hall? Who is driving these efforts?

And what about the folks selling the Shallowford/Emory hospital site? Who are these people and how did that ball get rolling? Before the Parks Bonds went down in flames, they seemed all but assured of a windfall sale of two properties in a very tough market as they were also the owners of the Peachford property slated (for what this is worth) to become a road to nowhere. How did THAT deal happen? What about the discussions leading to the plan with the bond contingencies? And was connectivity the real motivation for the City's Peachford purchase, or was it to secure an option on the hospital property post vote? Even if only by a "gentleman's agreement". Are we really to believe these two transactions were independent "arm's length" negotiations, only to concoct a plan where sale and purchase are so intertwined as to be indistinguishable? Is anyone in Dunwoody that naive? Who exactly are these folks--faces and names? Again, real names of real people who really sign legal, binding documents and the names of those who pay them to do so.

Now that the deals are done and we have skin in the game it seems imminently reasonable for the City to proactively publish on the City Website all the records related to these negotiations. Full disclosure, nothing less.

Brookhaven: Dunwoody Deja Vu

In two key regards Brookhaven is heading down the path recently paved by Dunwoody.

First is standard operating procedure for any powerful interest that wants to get their way: schedule a public vote at an inconvenient time, say the first Tuesday after the last new moon before the summer solstice. This provides the special interest with maximum benefit not just from ordinary public apathy, but also from summer distractions, vacations and outside activities. Expect them to push for a mid-summer vote where they can expect eighty percent approval from a very small turnout. And like Dunwoody, this will be done in a PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION YEAR, when fall voter turnout will be at a four year peak.  Were they patriotic supporters of this country's democratic principals the referendum would be on the general ballot, but they are more than willing to subvert our ideals to gain even a minor advantage.

The second was honed if not formulated by the Citizens for Dunwoody: form a private non-profit to run various "Task Force" efforts. These task forces were simply brilliant. They engaged people who wanted to think of themselves as  "part of the movement" and by appealing to their inflated sense of self-importance, kept them harmlessly engaged in the cause. Since the organization is PRIVATE so are all the meetings and reports. All the real shakers and movers have to do is round up the busy-bodies, teach them a secret handshake and give them some busy-work. At that point the "Task Forcers" will go press the flesh, saying asinine things like "trust me, I know, I'm on a the Task Force and the county has it all screwed up--the City will do much better". This isn't just marketing, it is prosthelytizing as it is not a matter of fact, but rather an article of faith.

It is not too late nor too early for reasoning folks in Brookhaven to take action. They should make two non-negotiable demands:

1. put the cityhood referendum on the 2012 general election ballot
2. operate the Task Forces under the legal constraints of Georgia's Open Meeting Laws and publish Task Force reports no later than six weeks before the referendum

You will be given some reasons why this just cannot happen. Any attempt to justify an "early vote" is unadulterated crap. Period. They will attempt to deflect the task force issue by using the "private corporation" shield, but as with Dunwoody, should the Brookhaven referendum pass, the Governor's office will establish an operational committee for the city between passage and first day of operation. You are only asking that the Governor's office start before the referendum.

If Mikey cannot pull these two simple things off, then perhaps his city isn't ready for prime time.

Brookhaven: Learn from Dunwoody

Brookhaven is well along in fulfilling its destiny as the next city to incorporate in DeKalb and there is much to be learned from its slightly older sister to the north.

First, it is inevitable, don't fight it. You don't have to blindly embrace it, but fighting will be like swimming in quicksand, but with a peanut gallery rooting for the sand. In the end you're going down and all you will succeed in accomplishing is adding your name to the list that includes "Shrill Jill" and "Farmer Bob". But again, you don't have to just sit in the corner, eat your cookies and drink your milk. You can think. You can analyze. And...if you are very careful, you can criticize.

Your CVI study is complete. In terms of content this is relatively insignificant, but as a milestone it means that the dominant power structure is in place. Just check out the assumptions underpinning the foregone conclusion that "shows Brookhaven would be viable". Then pull that string. Who insisted on these assumptions? Is it the same group that paid for the study? Just who are these people--not a group--real, flesh and blood, money makin', power-hungry people? Who the hell are they? They need to be outed. Early.

These are the folks who will run your city for the first few to several years. And they will run it to their benefit, not the benefit of the Citizens of Brookhaven (see, now doesn't that just sound right?). They will be pulling the strings of council and mayor, but even before, it is these, the few, the empowered, that will draft your ordinances, set the rules that dominate your life, and unlike the benign neglect of DeKalb, these folks will see to it that you toe the line. Or else. If you're in a HOA and hate it, think of this as a HOA on steroids, with the power to tax, condemn, and compel with an armed force. If you're in a HOA and just love it, then you're probably one of the assholes that will be running the city anyway.

When it comes time to vote, not for the referendum--that will be rigged, but for mayor and council, you might want to pretend it is the second or third election, not the first. By the time you get to the third election you will have become thoroughly disillusioned with all the pompous asses that promote themselves as having been some kind of great contributor to the cityhood movement or who played patty-fingers with other power-hungry frat boys in one of the unavoidable string of "non-profits" that foisted this city upon you. Those are the people you'll certainly vote against then. Cut to the chase. Vote against them now.

And you might just want to look at the financials. See, the proponents of cityhood are gonna tell you how "we can have the same or better services for even less money". Maybe. And they love to point out the elimination of the bifurcated "Special Services Tax District" which covers two of the much ballyhooed "3-P's" of new DeKalb Cities: Police and Parks. Fact is, these have to be paid for, and you will have your own overhead to cover down at the newly minted city hall. Expect "parks bonds" to be floated within three years of incorporation. Expect a police force that is twice as large as you will be sold on pre-referendum and a never-ending stream of budget increases backed by little more than flag waving.

As you dig down into the revenue side you'll see a big chunk o' cash: franchise fees. Turns out the county gets virtually none of this money as it is not incorporated but your newly incorporated Brookhaven will, so any financial comparison that ignores this disparity is intellectually bankrupt. Now much of this money comes from folks in unincorporated areas of the state, including yourselves at this point, but it largely/only goes to cities. Some folks, often those in unincorporated areas, find this morally reprehensible. But, as has been pointed out by leaders in Dunwoody, this money is necessary to support the city, and in your case it helps eliminate that SSTD assessment. So it's OK, right? After all, you've been on the downside of this great moral divide and now it is your turn to reap the rewards. This is how "situation ethics" works. All you need to bring to the table is a very flexible moral spine and an equally firm sense of self righteousness.

But wait! There's more!

You're gonna start this city, so you're gonna need "City Services". One thing Dunwoody did right (really, you finally read it here) was to ignore the siren song of the "Shills for CH2M Hill" who were advocates of Whole Hog "P Three Uh Oh", otherwise known as "privatization". Clearly many services should not add head count to the city payroll with its generous benefit package--and yes, you will find one of the first things enacted will be generous benefits. If you have a janitor, electrician, HVAC tech, mechanic, or even an IT guy, on city payroll then you're an idiot. By the same token, you'll probably NOT want to contract for police services. But there is much grey in between. Fortunately there is a simple rule to follow in deciding whether to outsource or not: if you can envision requesting information under the Open Records Act, then you want that function in-house. Otherwise, you're screwed. Well, you're probably screwed anyway, but if they can throw up the "sorry, private business information" roadblock, then you're screwed, glued and tattooed.

And finally, don't let your guard down. You're gonna have yet another set of politicians that require constant watching and frequent changing. Buck up. You gotta do both every chance you get.

Policing the Police

The 2012 Dunwoody budget is out and some in the blogosphere are lamenting the removal of funds for a "Crime Prevention Unit" requested by our police department, on the basis that a quarter of a million dollars is a mere drop in the bucket. In spite of the fact that the request lacks sufficient details or measurable goals to be more that "because I want it", there is a move afoot to reinstate this in the budget.

So here we are in Dunwoody, beset by "parkies" demanding it all in one huge chunk, and those that already have a significant chunk nonetheless grabbing for more. A little here, a little there.

There is also a school of thought that subscribes to the notion that we can never spend enough money on police and any idea the chief comes up with simply must be good (see "because I want it"). Special units. Anti-terrorism training. Armored Personnel Carriers. Para-Military Forces (aka "SWAT" teams). The more the better.

But, is it possible that our existing resources are being deployed sub-optimally?

Did  we really need to take an officer out of service to send him to Israel, just because it was partly (wholly?) funded by Other People's Money? Really??!!?? What about the fact that this officer wasn't patrolling our streets or even an apartment complex? Then there was the chief's junket to "The Other Georgia". That really paid off in reducing criminal activity and our backlog of open investigations. NOT!

What we really could have used is trained officers who know to "cover the back door" when going to arrest someone. Instead, the alleged perp simply fled out the back, never to be seen again. And, did calling in neighboring SWAT teams to help the bungle-brothers improve that outcome? No, but didn't they just look stunning! Consider that when the Dunwoody PD starts murmuring about "needing a SWAT team" of its own. Do you really want these people running an armored paramilitary force using no-knock warrants and pointing automatic weapons at you?

Do we really need aggressive traffic patrolling of I-285 or would we be better off if these same patrols were in our "aging inventory of apartments" around the same times (dusk and dawn) as they're collecting fees and fines from "Snob County" commuters? The official answer is readily apparent to anyone on I-285 on almost any morning.

And "Police Segways"? Really?!? Is there no toy this child will be denied?

As a another example of questionable priorities, on Saturday October 15th, there were no fewer than four Dunwoody patrol cars on Dunwoody Parkway between Mount Vernon and Village Burger for some "event". Yet we're told the DPD hasn't the resources for traffic control near schools. Now if this looks like currying favor on the one hand while "convincing" parents to vote on budget expansion on the other, well, the facts are what they are.  If crime really is a problem, then stop with the "selective operations" and ramp up the patrols--stop being boy scouts and start being cops.

As for Data Driven operations and governance...

...bring

...it

...on!

And publish that data. Not on some pre-filtered, sanitizing web site, but as raw, CSV data. Yes, we have hired "professionals" with "expertise" who have also crafted successful careers in politically steeped areas of government. They certainly know what they're doing and why. So let's not keep it a secret. We also have a city packed with "Smart people" and some of these folks are equally capable of analyzing data. Some are old farts, retired from successful careers in business and technology with both the time and the skills for this effort. They may also come to the task without the agenda of "make myself more important by making my budget bigger".

Has the city done even a minimally acceptable job of publishing data to this self-proclaimed "Smart City"? We, the taxpayers, paid for radar speed signs that collect traffic data. Well dammit, publish that data. The city spent the money on a web page to filter police data so these data obviously exist. Run a DB dump and publish the raw data and don't tell us "that's too expensive", or "you just need to fill out an Open Records Request at a cost of $$$". We're already paying for the data to be collected and for a PR website and quite frankly if you're doing a professional job, you're backing up the DB, so you have the raw data readily available. Publish it.

Since the data are clearly available, "all we want are the facts ma'am", and we'll take it from there. If we, the citizens, determine you are doing the best you can with the little you have (currently a very significant portion of the budget), and that you could do more, with more, then we can have an informed conversation about adding resources and what we expect as a result.

But as it stands, our budget is big enough to handle the necessities if the city were properly managed. Once operations are effective and efficient, it will be time to add or expand services but only as demanded by the citizens, not as they are put forth by our employees whose self-interest may not always align with the community.

Revolutionary Forces Beaten Back

With apologies to the Beatles and all their fans...

You say you want a revolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world

You tell me that it's evolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world

But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know you can count me out

This was the message sent by the citizens of Frederick County, MD and apparently received by their local Board of County Commissioners. While some of the uproar is sure to have come from "self-serving county employees" for whom privatization meant loss of pay and benefits if not a job, there were broader concerns about how the BoCC was conducting business.

You say you got a real solution
Well you know
We'd all love to see the plan

You ask me for a contribution
Well you know
We're all doing what we can

But if you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait

As it should be in all government contracted services, transparency was a real issue. From the beginning the BoCC not only conducted much of their business in a way that came under criticism on this point, but they neglected to address transparency concerns when their revolutionary new outsourcing plan took effect.

You say you'll change the constitution
Well you know
We all want to change your head

You tell me it's the institution
Well you know
You better free your mind instead

But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow

The situation started as an "electoral mandate", not unlike any election in the U.S., especially when an incumbent loses. It also created a single-party BoCC led by a recently elected Chairman who became the public face of local government outsourcing.

Don't you know it's gonna be alright

At the end of it all, reason overcame revolution. A hastily prepared report was reviewed by the University of Maryland after which this report was given the disposition it merited based upon that review. A consensus was reached to "make haste slowly" putting Frederick County on a path of optimizing services and reducing cost structure while retaining transparency and accountability. This approach to addressing the misalignment between public and private payroll and benefit structures is much more like what Atlanta is doing and Dunwoody has done than what Sandy Springs did.

It bears watching.

Sanity Reigns

It must be the weather, but sanity reigned at a recent "Smart" City Council meeting. Specifically, the tax intended to fund the effort to buy the Georgia Music Hall of Fame was rejected. It is interesting to note that the Mayor is earning quite the reputation as an advocate of increasing taxes as he is now two for two.

The best objections were based on principles and trust. One Councilor, you can probably guess which one, noted that the Convention Bureau had not followed the requirements of transparency. Such shenanigans are always suspect. Another Councilor questioned the veracity of those who claimed "we will drop the tax if we do not get the GMHoF" by probing whether the real plan was to immediately borrow against the allegedly "potential" future taxes. Very likely that is exactly the plan. Behind closed doors, naturally.

The lame justification of a tax increase is smarmy, but 100% unadulterated Dunwoody, and is based on belief that it is righteous to tax everyone but ourselves. As if any tax we don't pay really isn't a tax...maybe that's the way smarter folks see it.

As for the GMHoF...the Dunwoody proposal, even just as a document, was by far the worst of the bunch, a rather sad sandwich of souse between stale white bread. Starting with a chorus of "listen to us, we're smart" it ends with a crescendo reprise of "how great we art". But in the middle we find little of substance and what is there is rather unappetizing: no recognition of the importance of certification and conservancy, no explanation of the synergies with existing music venues (there are none and no plans for any), the rich heritage of artistic incubation (we have none), just a feeble appeal to greed with a plan to pick into children's pockets with field trips.  This earned Dunwoody a well-deserved last place.

If Dunwoody were serious about music we would already have our version of Chastain Park Amphitheatre, perhaps smaller, perhaps "on the lawn", perhaps at Brook Run, maybe even in conjunction with Perimeter College. Or perhaps even a bandstand in the village--even if only used for the Fourth of July parade. But this is Dunwoody. The public outcry regarding traffic, late night noise and lights would be deafening. And heaven forbid it require trimming a tree. Fact is Dunwoody voters want a sleepy little burgh, and when we want to see a show we'll go to Alpharetta, Sandy Springs, Vinings or Gwinnett. Maybe even the Fox.

This scam was always about getting OPM into Perimeter Center. Fine. Let them acquire the land,  and pony up the dollars, and build their "music center", and update the proposal. If successful, PCID will be to music what Helen is to alpine villages.

City Struggles with Transparency

In its first official meeting the Dunwoody City Council faced two issues related to transparency.

First was the selection of a legal organ. There is a universal desire to reward Dick Williams for his unwavering support of cityhood, but the Crier is a weekly and that doesn't suit the council's desires for advance public notice. (You decide why.) It was proposed that there be two : the AJC, allowing for as short a notice as legally allowed, and the Crier for the aforementioned reasons. Everyone happy? Not so fast. A strong suggestion was made to get a city website in place ASAP. It was a well-reasoned, informative suggestion and did not meet with the resistance one might have expected. Let's all hope it happens.

Surprisingly (or maybe not so), this meeting saw the first open records request. What is certainly surprising is the respondent: John Heneghan! Perhaps it was an ethical contact high, but Councilman Heneghan had to discuss the matter before determining the document under question was indeed a public record. The document? It starts like this:

MEMORANDUM

TO: Mayor and Council, City of Dunwoody
FR: Dan Weber
DATE: Tuesday, September 30, 2008

RE: Hybrid Budget

To assist in your decision making process, ...

How could anyone think that a memorandum addressed to the Mayor and Council regarding the most significant issue facing this city, with the stated intent of influencing their decision, could be seen as "a private conversation between two individuals"??!

Folks, it isn't that hard, at least not if you really believe in transparency. There are only two rules:

1. If the council is discussing employee pay, promotion, discipline, or dismissal, it is private as is other employee personal information.
2. Everything else belongs to the public and should be provided for public review, preferably on the internet---it is the 21st century after all.
   

The latter should include all communications, written, email, telephone and oral. Yes, oral. If lobbyists knew that officials were publishing a meeting report to those they serve (remember us? the citizens? the voters?) politics might be a better thing. All memos, all source material under review, all RFPs and responding proposals, and all email correspondence should be promptly and in some cases automatically, posted. It should also include all phone records, calls received and placed, parties on the call, duration, purpose of the call, and topics of conversation.

The technology is there to make this happen. Do it.

TOD