Here we go again

Published 12:12 pm Saturday, April 26, 2008

A report says: Communication is still a serious problem at City Hall.

Despite talk of recent improvements, relations between the mayor, city councilors and city staff are still greatly hampered by poor communication and distrust, according to a new report on internal communications at City Hall.

“Historically, communication appears to improve for a short time and then reverts to old habits,” says the introduction of the 26-page draft report, done by Seattle firm the Prothman Company. “Clearly just ‘communicating better’ will not resolve these challenges. The parties will have to want to work together if many of these problems are to be resolved.”

The report, which Mayor Darlene Kordonowy said will be posted on the city’s Web site next week, is based on one-on-one interviews with council members and staff, and a review of the city’s existing communication policies and procedures.

It recommends several steps for improving communication, including implementing a tracking system for council and citizen inquiries, as well as more regular reports between leaders and better organized communication channels.

Six council members were interviewed; one declined to participate until a final budget was received. All department directors took part.

Conducted in February, the interviews offer a window into a confused and sometimes tense climate at City Hall.

Conversations were structured around five questions: whether the respondents are sufficiently updated on the status of both work programs and, separately, finances; whether the mayor’s weekly reports are valuable; whether they would favor a system that would track council inquiries; and in what specific areas communication is now lacking.

Responses are listed anonymously, and aren’t verbatim – it isn’t always clear whether a councilor or staff member is speaking – but according to the report they capture the “intent and tone of the comments” made by those interviewed.

Some pointed to problems with the mayor.

“We, as staff, may be gun shy at responding to certain types of requests for information until the Mayor has seen it because we can’t be sure of how it will be used against us, or misinterpreted by council members or the public,” one respondent said. “Also, we are not sure what makes the mayor upset at some of our responses.”

Another complained that communication with the mayor is too often cut short.

“Never finishing conversations with the mayor is a constant theme,” the respondent said. “This is a problem because our focus or direction remains unclear.”

Councilors, too, were criticized.

“The council does not give true attention to core services,” one person said. “No one seems to want to pay attention to it. We have done charts, graphs, every way conceivable to show them, but they just don’t want to listen to what we actually do. I thought that this year with a change in council that work plans would get more attention – but, no.”

Another respondent said council committees “ignore” department work plans and “just run right over the top of them with their own agendas.”

“Why is the council still talking about cutting major projects out of my budget?” one person said. “It’s March. This is demoralizing for staff. We start, or continue, work on a project that is in the budget then the budget is revisited again and again and staff is left not feeling like the work they have already done on a project was worthwhile.”

At the same time, some staff comments express a belief that the shortcomings are not a product of negative intent.

Council members offered both positive and negative feedback. As in the past, some are frustrated by what they see as a shortage of information. Others addressed rumors of a gag order on city staff.

“There is a directive to staff to report all communication with council to the mayor’s office,” one councilor said. “This is unfortunate. It sets a wrong tone.”

Another had fewer problems getting information.

“I’m very satisfied with my ability to access staff when I need to,” the councilor said. “I feel there is an open channel and open door. Asking face to face questions of staff has worked well and has been very helpful.”

Kordonowy, who was not interviewed for the report, on Friday said she is “embarrassed” by some of the comments, but ultimately grateful they came out.

“Sometimes when you ask questions, you don’t like the answers,” she said. “I was surprised by the level of criticism that came from all directions. What is clear is there are some common themes and finger-pointing.

This puts a lot of the responsibility on me, and I understand that. I think the weight of that responsibility hit hard at first.

Once I got over the immediate strength of (the responses), I was glad we did it because I see it as a tool we can use to help us improve the business we’re doing at City Hall.”

Council Chair Bill Knobloch agreed the report is valuable, particularly during trying financial times. He said the anonymity of it allowed for more honest responses.

“I’m concerned that there is a disconnect as a matter of policy between the council and the city administration,” Knobloch said. “This was much needed.”