Burnt Orange Report
News, Politics, and Fun From Deep in the Heart of Texas
|
|
Burnt Orange ReportNews, Politics, and Fun From Deep in the Heart of Texas |
|
 |
 |
November 29, 2005Austin City Charter PropositionsBy Karl-Thomas MusselmanSave Our Springs Alliance is collecting signatures on petitions for calling an election on two propositions. Pay is 75 cents per valid signature of a City of Austin registered voter. (Voter signs both petitions and you make $1.50). Work any hours, any place. Door to door or tabling. For information call Glen Maxey 443-2004 (o) 656-6337 (cell) OR Nate Walker (680-8438). Petitions can be picked up and information at: Glen Maxey Consulting, 512 E Riverside Ste 203, Austin TX 78704 Call 443-2004 to make sure someone is at the office. Usually here 1 pm to 6 pm / Saturday and Sunday afternoons. Information email: Glen at RepGMaxey-AT-aol.com The ballot propositions are listed in the extended entry. One is a Save Our Spring Charter Amendment to close loopholes being used to get around the landmark SOS ordinance when it was first passed. The other is an Open Government Online measure. Grits has some thoughts on the Online measure, which would force open some APD police records. UPDATE: The official charter campaign website is here. Summary of “Save Our Springs” Charter Amendment General Purpose: Upon approval by the voters of the City of Austin, the Amendment would make it the official policy of the City of Austin to protect the quality and quantity of water flows in the Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer and to take actions in support of this policy, as summarized below: Limits Development Subsidies – Prohibits the City from offering tax abatements or other economic development subsidies to companies or their close affiliates that seek to build in the Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer, and requires those companies receiving economic development subsidies to refrain from future development in the watershed. Minimizes Grandfathering -- The City’s overly lax reading of state law has allowed massive amounts of development in the Barton Springs watershed as “grandfathered” from the 1992, Austin voter-approved Save Our Springs ordinance. The charter amendment would require the City to narrowly define “grandfathered development” under state and federal law. Summary of “Open Government Online” Charter Amendment General Purpose: The Amendment would open Austin City Government to public scrutiny by requiring most of City business to be carried out online, in real time, and with full right of public access and public input. Current internet technology makes it possible for local governments to carry out most of their business online, including permitting, contracting, project and policy development and management, broadcast of council and board and commission meetings, disclosure of meetings and correspondence with lobbyists, etc. And just like with businesses, doing so reduces costs and increases competition in the market place of ideas, so that better decisions are made. By opening city government to public scrutiny and to the ideas, information and participation of everyone who cares about Austin, we can make a better future for Austin and establish Austin as a leader in open, online and participatory democracy. Require Open, Online Government for Efficiency –Using internet technology to manage permitting, contracting, and public information disclosure, the City can save time and money. Rather than spend staff time responding to public information requests, most City information would be automatically disclosed requiring no time at all. Most of this information is in electronic format already – its just not accessible to the public. Require Open, Online Government for Accountability—It’s long been recognized that shining light on government is the best disinfectant against waste, abuse, and malfeasance. By forcing City Government to be accessible online and in real time, we can assure far greater accountability of both elected officials and city management. Require Open, Online Government for Participatory Democracy – Austin is best when it invites, considers, and responds to the questions, information and opinions of everyone who cares about our city. The Open Government Online Amendment would allow interested citizens into the city decision making process by requiring that development permitting and project and policy development be done through webpages that automatically post comments of interested citizens within the same process of considering proposals and applications by developers, contract bidders, and other commercial interests. Also, by requiring full public disclosure of how and with whom elected officials and top management spend their time, the Amendment would create a powerful incentive for balancing lobbyist access with citizen access. Comments
As a longtime advocate of reform and "good government", I'm inclined to support any sort of open government measure. However, what I've seen so far of the Open Government Online Charter Amendment seems disastrous. The sheer cost in terms of time and money could potentially paralyze city government. By requiring such extensive reporting of how city officials are spending their time, we risk turning City Hall into a scene from Office Space or a Dilbert comic (TPS reports anyone?). As anyone who has worked in an office environment that requires billable hour reports or other types of timekeeping knows, even basic reporting can eat up substantial time. The Charter Amendment is time tracking on steroids. Working at a law firm this summer, I had my first experience with billable hours, and even with the light workload and lax timekeeping requirements of a summer associate, I easily spent 30 minutes a day working on my time reports. A quick glance at the Charter Amendment's requirements and I could easily imagine a City Hall employee spending an hour or more PER DAY on paper work, rather than the people's business. Moreover, the breadth of the reporting requirements raises serious privacy concerns. Individual citizens may have casework requests that involve embarrassing or personal details that, while likely available through an open records request, still enjoys a degree of protection from purely voyeuristic elements through a minimal search cost. It also significantly disadvantages the city in negotiations with companies. If I were a general counsel, I would be extremely reluctant to allow any negotiations with the city if I knew all details of our discussions would be instantly accessible to competitors or other parties. Additionally, part of a city's strategic advantage in competing to attract investment and jobs is keeping the details of negotiations secret from other cities. The Amendment may even be in direct conflict with state and federal law, if it requires disclosure of details of the city's involvement in litigation and settlement discussions. Much of this information is protected by law in order to protect the confidentiality of litigants, and to encourage open and honest settlement negotiation. Empirically, we know that even if we spent substantial resources on making sure as much information was available free of cost, most of the information would only be accessed by interested parties who already have an incentive to stay informed. Even putting the information on the internet still requires people to check the site periodically - it's no guarantee that citizens in general will show substantially more interest in the day to day operations of the city. If you look at the notice and comment procedure for the issuance of federal regulations, the free availability of proposed regulations in the Federal Register online, as well as the easy submission of public comments, do not substantially change the participation of the public. There must be some attempt to balance the increased benefits of openness and increased public participation with the effective operation of city government. I'm all for putting most, if not all, materials already available in electronic form online. I'm also for creating websites for any current or ongoing discussions on policy, permits, contracts, and what not, posting information regularly, and allowing public comment and submission of materials. There must be realistic and practical limits to allow city officials and employees to work efficiently and effectively, to make sure that sensitive information is available only to truly interested parties, to preserve leverage and ensure candor in negotiations, and most of all, to respect important policies governing other arenas, such as the justice system. Consensus and participation are good things, but so is getting things done. Sometimes, the only way to push through a significant policy change amidst bickering interest groups is to give one party the power to make a final decision. For example, I'd like to see Austin begin building some kind of elevated rail/loop public transportation system in the next 10 years, at least around downtown, UT, etc. But the recent failure of a similar proposal in Seattle illustrates that even when most people are for something, government by committee can end up being less fair as the needs of every interest group end up obscuring what's best for the city. Open government is a good thing, but only insofar as it improves how the city serves its citizens. Exalting process at the expense of results can be a dangerous addiction. Posted by: Ramey Ko at November 29, 2005 06:52 PMPost a comment
|
|
|
