During the last election, one of the big buzz-words was “consensus.” For instance, then-councilman Bob Manning wrote an endorsement of his eventual successor in which he said, “He is known as a consensus builder. He is not a divisive or polarizing figure. Rather, he brings people together to achieve results.” Conventional wisdom at the time was that the council was working better now than it ever had, and the reason was because of this new ethos of consensus-building.
At first, I tried to differentiate between good and bad “consensus.” (Good consensus involved timely and effective public input into projects; bad consensus was just another word for “groupthink.”) But since then, I’ve determined that what I was calling “good consensus” would be better described as simply “good leadership.” And “consensus” is always bad.
Certainly the last thing the council needs is more consensus. “Consensus” is defined as “general agreement or concord; harmony.” The city council couldn’t be any more in agreement if they held hands and sang Kumbaya . . . unless they found a way to get Sandberg off the council so every vote could be unanimous. The council (then or now) doesn’t need more consensus; it needs more critical thinking. It needs more deliberation — public deliberation.
Billy Dennis is right when he says, “Technically, policy might be set in public, but the process of arriving at the decision is not.” How many times have you seen this happen? An issue comes before the council. A motion is made to approve and is seconded. Councilman Sandberg speaks against it. There is no further discussion. Ballots are cast, and the motion passes 10-1. This happens time and time again. On big votes, like the decision to give $39.5 million to the Wonderful Development (aka Marriott Hotel), a few more council members speak in support of it, but the outcome is the same: no deliberation; 10-1 vote to approve.
How can eleven people get together and not have any major disagreements on nearly every issue — even one involving almost $40 million? Is this not an amazing phenomenon? As I see it, there are only two possible reasons why this would happen consistently over a long period of time (I’ve excluded the implausible option of it all being a huge coincidence that they agree on absolutely everything):
- The council members are skirting the Open Meetings Act and deliberating these issues out of the public eye. (Note I said “skirting,” not “violating.”) This is Billy’s theory. He suggests that decisions are made “during phone calls and emails, and during social events.” Conflicts exist, but they are being resolved in secret.
- The council members are blindly following the recommendations of staff or the district council person without thinking through or deliberating the issue at all. Council members avoid conflict by not thinking.
Both of these options involve “consensus.” Neither of these options is in the best interests of the taxpayers.
Lewis Lapham once said, “In place of honest argument among consenting adults the politicians substitute a lullaby for frightened children [i.e., “consensus”]: the pretense that conflict doesn’t really exist, that we have achieved the blessed state in which we no longer need politics.” And former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher explained, “To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects.” Did you ever read a quote more descriptive of the Peoria City Council’s decisions?
Council members, the Journal Star, and the proverbial “man on the street” all think consensus on the council is fantastic — soooo much better than those old, divisive councils where they argued about stuff (gasp!) in public! And yet, the decisions haven’t gotten any better. They just have fewer, shorter meetings with more unanimous or nearly-unanimous votes. And — did I mention? — more secrecy. Because if you’re going to keep up “the pretense that conflict doesn’t really exist,” you can’t have transparency in government.
Bottom line: Consensus is bad. Remember that the next council election.
It looks like the residents of the 1000 block of Underhill- home of yours truly- are one step closer to getting an unwanted parking lot thrust upon them, courtesy of such a “consensus” scenario as you describe here, which occurred at last night’s council meeting. I’m fighting this, and my immediate neighbors are fighting, and we will continue to do so. I have no desire to see a lot from my porch, and would much rather see neighbors waving back at me. Onward!
Bravo CJ! THIS IS EXACTLY why we need more Gary Sandbergs. (and kcdads)
Nice post.
I often wonder how much homework is involved when a vote like the Marriott comes up. Maybe Gary could post on how much time the council is given to do their due diligence when a major financial decision is to be made.
Sadly, I would say option 1 is my choice for how the sausage is made.
But I’m a pessimist.
Of course, this discussion about consensus immediately brings District 150 to mind. Certainly, the District 150 school board seems to “achieve” consensus all too often. I believe I first heard the word “consensus” about 15 years ago at Manual. Manual’s principal used the word constantly–used as a “smoke screen” to give the impression that all of us agreed with all administrative decisions. Nothing could have been further from the truth. District 150 BOE members recently stated that they have all their arguments behind closed doors–evidently always reaching total consensus before voting in public. Even the occasion lone “no” voter generally presents a one-sentence argument against the issue at hand–an argument that generally reveals no passion of conviction, etc.
Of course, I meant the “occasional” lone voter. There seems to be an attitude on the BOE that reveals an aversion to or fear of “negativity.” Consequently, I believe they make decisions without ever looking at the pros and cons of any issue–they immediately tout the positives, totally ignoring all the things that could go wrong. I believe it’s also a PR tactic to lull the rest of us into a feeling that all is going well.
CJ:
City Council —Option 1 and possibly option 2.
Peoria County —- Options 1 and 2.
Healthy debate of the issues would make for a better community. But then of course — you need to have a plan — because any road will get you there —- wherever there would be located. The sad truth is that elected officials give way to special interest groups and unions for the sake of job creation.
kcdad —- yuppers — I will join Gary and yourself in that group! 🙂
I agree with Sharon …
“There seems to be an attitude on the BOE that reveals an aversion to or fear of “negativity.” Consequently, I believe they make decisions without ever looking at the pros and cons of any issue–they immediately tout the positives, totally ignoring all the things that could go wrong.”
Amen sister.
So, the City Council seems to have caught the District 150 “group think virus.” Yikes!! We’re really in trouble now.
Perhaps we are quibbling over semantics, but consensus is not bad. Lack of open debate is bad. Lack of real public input into planning is bad. But the point to my post is to ask readers what I, as a blogger, can or should do differently to encourage more out-in-the-open decision making.
There is a 3rd reason that should be listed. That would be
3. After being fully advised of all the facts, positive and negative, the clearly best choice becomes self-evident.
I’m not saying that is what happening, but you should at least include it as a possibility.
Diane is leaning in the right direction. Its not as if the first time a council member, or any elected official, sees their council or board packet is at the meeting. If that were the case I imagine that most of you would be even more upset. So they all have the opportunity to discuss the items with city staff, those affected, and other council members (without violating the Open Meetings Act). It isn’t unusual to arrive to a meeting and have most of the differences sorted out before hand and ready to make a decision. If members of the public wish to ask questions or express concern they can do so, but you didn’t elect the members of the council to showcase their debate skills every Tuesday night you elected them to make decisions.
I am not arguing for or against the outcomes of those decisions, I am merely making a point about the process. You may also be upset about how much you think special interests may influence a decision, that is also irrelevant when we are talking about this part of the process.
How does achieving “consensus” differ from “voting”? I think council members and BOE members vote, believing (or more than likely, pretending) that their decisions are based on the “consensus” of the general public. Decision-making bodies don’t need consensus–they have the vote. I’m never sure how they learn of the opinions of the public.
AHA! I have it! It’s perfectly logical. I don’t know why I didn’t think of it before. I have to post about it later today. Woo hoo!
come now, CJ, you are asking council members to think?? That’s a pretty tall order.
Sharon, I don’t think they or most elected officials vote based on what they think the consensus of the general public is. That isn’t the way it is intended to work, otherwise we might as well implement a direct democracy. They vote based on what they believe to be the best decision.
Diane does have a point — that is a possibility.
Nevertheless, when a citizen/taxpayer attends a public meeting and an elected official is amazed that a public facility has been fined for state violations (which by the way, said violations have been in the press and previously discussed) does leave a citizen/taypayer scratching his/her head in disbelief. (Regrettably only one example and not an isolated case.)
Or here is another example to consider. Citizen/taxpayer ask a public body in a public meeting why funds are being requested for a public project which has already been paid for with public funds by another public body. Elected officials have not a clue as to what has been requested (a report back is requested) nor as one elected official shared that they had not previously discussed at least some of the projects.
Another head scratching moment for the citizen/taxpayer. And so it goes….
Healthy debate by the city council? Now that they have “consensus” builder Tim to help build the “herd” instinct the county board has one less.
Peoria County has had only 5 issues this year in 5 full board meetings and all other committees where there have been votes against the “herd” and I was involved in all, I believe. Won one in which the administration and 8 board members wanted to spend $150 for “interior” signage at the courthouse. Phelan and I got 9 votes to defeat the expenditure. Two of the 5 Republicans on the board voted to spend the money including Tim R. who is now on the city council. 7 of the 13 Democrats voted no.
Administration kept saying “but we have it in the budget”….
Watch for my LTR in July in the Community Word. Many of you will find it interesting. And more to come hopefully in the JS and Observer.
Sorry, $150,000.00, not $150.00. Too many things going on in my life but no excuse to not proof read more carefully.
Consensus? Hmmmm……………
At what point does [any] government ‘body’ forego “consensus,” and literally become a coercive power? Consider the track record of the lil’old Peoria City Council and/or Peoria County Board.
Sharon,
Regarding D150 BoE, I have been told that one of the main reasons the votes are done with so little questioning of the Supt. by board members is that Hinton rarely will bring something to the BoE meetings that he doesn’t already have the votes for. That’s why, no matter how many facts, alternatives and questions are brought out by the public, the vote(s) will go Hinton’s way almost 100% of the time once it is on the agenda for a vote.
Why do you think Mary Spangler made a rare appearance at the meeting to close schools? She was the insurance votes in case someone switched at the last minute and we all know it. What a slap in the face that was, BTW. She’s not there for public input, but shows up to make a decision that alters lives.
There have only been a few instances where the BoE reversed or denied something Hinton or one of his lackeys proposed. Those usually occurred when Hinton acted outside his pattern. Think Wacky Wednesdays last year. Wacky Wednesdays is the result of admin having to re -work Hinton’s original plan after massive and sustained outcry from the community. In that case, I believe the BoE had to vote to rescind a prior vote.
His proposal for “firing” the school librarians this year and his plan to eliminate high school ADs are a couple of other examples. Those proposals won’t come to a vote until he has the votes to pass them, although the AD action was accepted by the BoE in the abstract. (see proposal from January. The ADs were part of the additional cost savings outlined in the proposal.) Only after the media (see Kirk Wessler’s article) put them on the spot did the central admin back off on the ADs.
I don’t know about the City Council but I believe no. 1 and sometimes no. 3 are the main reasons for their constant consensus. I actually wish for the days of open debate, even if things happened more slowly.
Hot in the City: I was of the same opinion–that nothing will be brought to the table without the assurance of a majority of “yes” votes. It makes me wonder how many crazy ideas of Hinton’s haven’t made it to the table. I guess we should be grateful for some things. I agree with C.J.’s statement: “It needs more deliberation — public deliberation.” I believe the public should be in on some of the back and forth that goes on with the BOE before the vote is taken. I don’t think we have any idea how much, if any, thought goes into some of these very momentous decisions. I would like to hear their list of “cons” because, for the most part, all we ever hear are the “pros.”
If the proposal is put before the board, and the board makes a pre-determination as to what their vote will be when it is put to the roll-call, then we can safely say that our elected representatives are making decisions based on -zero- public input.
Legislation does not come to the floor of the elected body unless the majority in power knows where the votes are prior to the call up of a bill. The use of whips (political party opperatives in the Congress) to find out where the support or opposition to a bill resides.
Why bring up a resolution that you know is going to be defeated?
The minority party can force a bill to the floor if they can get enough signatures to discharge a bill and get an up or down vote on the issue. Otherwise the bill or resolution is stuck in a drawer for an eternity.
Precinct Committeeman,
I thought we were talking about local politics/government? Is anyone currently serving as a ‘whip’ on the Peoria City Council? Maybe Sandberg?
Haaaa!
Granted local governments are not as sophisticated as the Potomac crowd but, the process that occurs is very similar.
Those who want something to be favorably considered will get the votes lined up as much as possible ( within the limits of the law). If there is no support for the measure it will be shoved in a drawer until the terrain is modified or the public puts pressure on the body.
Whips take many forms. Local governments are not setup to have political positions on a legislative body. The GA in Springfield has the party leaders acting as a form of a head counter on a given issue.
I will make a statement that counting nose is done in every body of government at some point in the legislative deliberations.