[Stu Levitan]

Had a situation this afternoon I'd like some reaction to.

Nan Cnare from United Way and Mark Olinger from the city arranged a meeting to discuss how UW and the Housing in Action Leadership Team could help out on Allied Drive. There were four folks from UW/HALT there, Mark and Percy Brown from CDA staff, me and Gregg Shimanski and Kelly Thomas-Frater from the CDA, and Ald.Brian Solomon.

Although we three commissioners did not constitute a quorum of the CDA, we did constitute a quorum of the Allied Drive Subcte. So, as chair, I had to ask Kelly to leave, which she did.

My question is this: This was a preliminary discussion,with no action contemplated or taken. Having Kelly participate would have made for a better discussion, without any evident nefarious result. That three members of the subcte were present for the discussion would have no impact whatsoever on whatever UW/HALT and CDA ultimately do on Allied Drive.

So was it good public policy for me to ask Kelly to leave, or should she have stayed?

I'm interested in your thoughts. Thanks.

[VickySelkowe]

without any evident nefarious result.

As a city commission chair myself, Stu, I'm sympathetic. But "without any evident nefarious result" is not the standard we use for our open meetings. We don't want quorums of official bodies to be able to meet without public notice, whether or not something "nefarious" might ensue. Seems like all you had to do was publicly notice the meeting 24 hours ahead of time as a subcommittee meeting and then Kelly (and any other interested subcommittee members) could've participated without problem.

[Stu Levitan]

Yeah, but we couldn't go back in time. We just spaced that a quorum might be present, and once it was, it was too late. The question arose in real time at 11:35 Tuesday. Granted that the initial mistake was ours in not anticipating the possibility of a quorum, once it was, why was it better public policy for us to exclude one of our members?

[jjoyce]

Because better public policy ought to be as focused on transparency as it is on having good discussions.

While your mistake might have been relatively minor and, in the end, not a big deal, there's a fine line and we have guidelines/laws on this kind of thing for a reason.

[Brenda Konkel]

a) The better public policy is, as Vicky noted, to publicly notice the meeting. After all, you've been touting the CDAs openness as one of the reasons why we should spend more money to let the CDA play in Allied Drive. Publicly noticing meetings will provide for maximum openness and participation - something you seem inherently reluctant to provide.

b) Based on these questions and previous other discussions, I'm not sure you understand the open meetings laws, you should probably read and try to understand them after all these years of being involved in public bodies. When you read them, as an attorney you'll no doubt notice that "nefariousness" is not an element of the laws. Here's the info from the city's website about city and state laws.

c) If the subcommittee wasn't going to take up the issue, there was no violation in that regard. If the CDA was going to take up the issue, you could have negative quorum issues, which we have discussed off line ad nauseum. Simply having quorum of a group in a room isn't a violation. Discussing an item (electronically, face-to-face or otherwise) AND having too many people in the room and/or participating in alternative manners in that discussion is a violation if it is a topic that is going to be taken up by the body.

d) These are STATE laws, enforced by the District Attorney, and they haven't been much of a priority for him.

e) Additionally, if you don't like the laws, you might talk to someone in the legislature to have them fixed.

Note: If readers note "tone" in this post it is likely because Stuart and I have been fighting off-line for days now and I can't keep up with the barrage of emails from him.

[Stu Levitan]

Sweet Jeebers, Brenda, I know the law and what I'm asking is whether, in this instance, with these facts, strict compliance with the law was actually the better public policy or not. You really think your snark about me being "inherently reluctant to provide" openness was justified?

BTW, for those wondering about the "barrage of emails" I've been sending Brenda, here's what I said in my email about this question:

"Here's my question, which I ask in all sincerity, and with respect for your commitment to open meetings:"

Pretty abusive on my part, wouldn't you say?

[lukpac]

Sweet Jeebers, Brenda, I know the law and what I'm asking is whether, in this instance, with these facts, strict compliance with the law was actually the better public policy or not.

Is that really a question to be asking at the meeting? I.e., wouldn't it be more appropriate for some type of legislative reform?

[VickySelkowe]

Stu, I don't get it. You know the rules. You know you needed to have the meeting noticed if you wanted Kelly to participate. So this after the fact musing masquerading as a "query"(which I'm tempted to call whining) about whether it's good policy or not is sorta silly. Whether "good" or not, those are the rules. Open meetings laws are not some pesky thing to be grumpily compiled with. They're a key part of local government transparency and accessibility. Yes, they require you do a little bit of pre-meeting planning to think, "Hmmm, I wonder if we might have a quorum present. Maybe, just to be safe, I should notice the meeting." And if you don't do that pre-meeting planning, well, then, bummer for you - and, in this case, bummer for the discussion because it would've likely been enhanced by Kelly's participation.

[Brenda Konkel]

Sweet Jeebers, Brenda, I know the law and what I'm asking is whether, in this instance, with these facts, strict compliance with the law was actually the better public policy or not. You really think your snark about me being "inherently reluctant to provide" openness was justified?

BTW, for those wondering about the "barrage of emails" I've been sending Brenda, here's what I said in my email about this question:

"Here's my question, which I ask in all sincerity, and with respect for your commitment to open meetings:"

Pretty abusive on my part, wouldn't you say?

I dedicate this post to nevermore, who loves it when Stuart and I fight . . . .

Stuart - that's just precious. You've been a snarky nasty bastard ever since I met with you, Ald. Solomon and Joel Plant, at my request. I set up that meeting to share with you my concerns, ask some questions and make some suggestions that should help you get your project through the council. My attempts to play nice were appreciated by 2/3s of the people at the meeting. While you were at your worst. However, I apparently made some good points as you are reconsidering the the resolution and you provided the staff with a list of issues I brought up that need to be discussed. I'm sorry you have to take this all so personally and we can't work cooperatively without you freaking out. Bad deadhead.

[Stu Levitan]

You know, I actually used to have some command of the language, and be able to communicate relatively simple thoughts. I wonder what happened ...

I know I should have thought about the possibility of a quorum ahead of time. But since the request for a meeting came from the United Way folks, I didn't have my "city meeting" neurons firing. My error.

But that's not the issue. All I'm asking is -- and I'm not whining, Vicky, I'm asking a question that I think deserves some thoughtful reflection -- in this instance, with these facts, was public policy advanced or impeded by strict compliance with the law?

[Brenda Konkel]

You know, I actually used to have some command of the language, and be able to communicate relatively simple thoughts. I wonder what happened ...

I know I should have thought about the possibility of a quorum ahead of time. But since the request for a meeting came from the United Way folks, I didn't have my "city meeting" neurons firing. My error.

But that's not the issue. All I'm asking is -- and I'm not whining, Vicky, I'm asking a question that I think deserves some thoughtful reflection -- in this instance, with these facts, was public policy advanced or impeded by strict compliance with the law?

Back on topic. Public policy would have been advanced if you had publicly noticed the meeting so that others who may have been interested could have attended instead of having and invite-only meeting. Want to tell us what happened at the meeting?

[nevermore]

I dedicate this post to nevermore, who loves it when Stuart and I fight . . . .

I see Christmas has come early to my computer this year.

Seriously though, as someone who's also chaired his share of committee and sub committee meetings, considering that the CDA Allied work is no small thing and that it is raising a considerable amount of concern in the community (especially amongst the, you know, Allied Drive neighborhood residents), it should be a no-brainer to decide that every working meeting be publicly noticed. Sunshine, dude. Sunshine...

[Stu Levitan]

Notes, as taken by Nan Cnare:

HALT subcommittee meeting with Madison Plg and CDA: 12/18/07
Attendees: Jim Bradley, Lau Christensen, Doug Strub, Mark Olinger, Stu Levitan, Greg Shimanski, Percy Brown, Brian Soloman and Nan Cnare.

Purpose: Share and revise components of successful neighborhoods as drafted by HALT, explore and identify opportunities for HALT for long term successful Allied Dr.

Key Comments:
For Section 8 parts, we need to have a strong connection for the services component, that is where we should start, building support services into the Performa.
We have not increased affordable housing in our community
Milwaukee and other areas have better more holistic models
CDA has the tools to be the leader above others, individual entities need that leadership and help
Mixed income is the only thing that works, can’t just try to reconfigure poverty into a different look
One year from now we need to have phase I in place, need process to define the services
Reviewed core component document: From that list the most needed services include: job assistance, financial planning, child care, strong support services.
Need to add to the list these most important needs: transportation and transportation access opportunities and employment opportunities with spatial match
CDA doesn’t provide these services but needs to be a part of it
There is a huge gap between residents ability to become ready for eligibility in housing by restored credit situations and to ready some for future ownership.
Need a good mix of residents who can pay the bills in the first 47 units and less reliance on the city to create self sustaining tenant mix.
Need to create that now and get Allied tenants into this. It is time to help get the people ready. Folks may believe that the arrival of new units trumps the everything, but folks who want to move in need to work to get themselves rentable before the buildings are ready in Spring, 2009. Tying the access to the units to the preparation of the individual households.
Location of the tenant development can be in strip mall, perhaps with MAP, not right on site, but importance to be in one place. As it goes well, we could replicate it elsewhere.
Can work not just with residents of the City-owned properties, but of Byron Olson’s places and others. It is difficult to help undercapitalized landlords when tenants can’t/don’t pay rents.
Interest in getting the rent to own and home ownership opportunities up ASAP, especially to show Fitchburg that this is moving in the right direction.
Unit mix can be more varied and different from existing, Prairie Crossing and Avalon.
Long term goal is not just a different landlord but less police calls, more vibrant community, will take patience and thinking differently

Next steps:
Attendees can re-convene us as appropriate
HALT will be supportive of the current efforts with a common understanding that the worst best result would be scraping the land and changing the cycle of failed rentals and neighborhood deterioration.
MO and SL will identify and share opportunities for support
NC will confer with HALT reps and prepare specifics for how the getting tenants ready w/ financial planning part could be put in place.

BTW,while we're on the subject, the actual Allied Drive Subcte will meet Friday at 11:30 in room LL110. We'll be discussing/acting on such items as percentage of Section 8 Project-Based Vouchers, phases of demolition and construction, screening criteria, unit mix and affordability.

[lukpac]

But that's not the issue. All I'm asking is -- and I'm not whining, Vicky, I'm asking a question that I think deserves some thoughtful reflection -- in this instance, with these facts, was public policy advanced or impeded by strict compliance with the law?

Do you mean "should the law be changed?" or "should I have paid attention to the law?"

[Stu Levitan]

I paid attention to the law, and asked Kelly to leave. The problem arose because it wasn't my meeting to begin with, but once three commissioners were present, I immediately realized there was a problem and I took the appropriate action. I'm just asking if the development of good public policy was necessarily better served by asking Kelly to leave in this instance.

Why I thought this was the place for that discussion, I just don't know.

Never mind.