|
||||
Council Attendance Much Better Than First Reported by Keith Higginbotham | City Beat | 07.29.10 |
+  9:00am | You know how you can tell you're having a bad day as a City Hall reporter? When you manage to make Val Lerch unhappy with you. It's like having a kindly uncle tell you that you suck. Yesterday, I sat down to write a column on City Council attendance rates during the last two-year Council term. No drawn out conclusions and no opinions. Just a short article based on a huge spreadsheet built with data from the minutes of every single Council meeting between July 15, 2008 and July 13, 2010. The problem is, my figures were wrong. In some cases, really wrong. In checking all those meetings I counted each Councilmember not present during each meeting's first roll call as absent for the whole meeting. After we posted the article, Councilmembers, city staff and readers alike let me know that was pretty stupid. Well, actually, really stupid. And I totally agree. Why? Because in 39 instances the Councilmembers that I counted as absent actually showed up within 15 minutes of the first roll call and were, in fact, present for the majority of the particular meetings. So, while the percentages in yesterday's article were mathematically accurate, they were, in the end, meaningless because they were based on my own faulty assumptions and input. So, today, I'm here to fall on my sword, say mea culpa, and correct my errors. It turns out that the full Council, with the Mayor presiding, actually met 43 of 76 times during the last term when you include the attendance of the late arrivals. This is a 56.6-percent full attendance rate--more than 17 percentage points better than I reported yesterday. If you only count the meetings where the full Council met but the Mayor was absent, the full attendance rate for the Council jumps to 59.2-percent during the two-year term (this includes considering a full Council as eight members during the 13 meetings the 1st District seat was vacant). This is, again, more than 17 percentage points better than yesterday's article stated. And as one of the Councilmembers' staff pointed out yesterday, all of the Councilmembers actually had a better than 90-percent attendance rate. Individual attendance rates for the Councilmembers actually ranged from 100-percent for former 9th District Councilmember Val Lerch to 90.8-percent for 8th District Councilmember Rae Gabelich. Here are the recalculated attendance rates for the other Councilmembers after including any meetings to which they arrived late: Bonnie Lowenthal, 1st District - 92.9 percent (based on 14 meetings through Nov. 14, 2008) A hypothetical average Councilmember during the last term attended about 72 of 76 meetings and had an average 94.3-percent attendance rate. For the sake of comparison, an average full-time worker that uses 10 sick days a year would have an attendance rate of just under 96-percent. To be fair, a Councilmember could only miss three meetings during the last term to achieve a 96-percent attendance rate. For his part, Mayor Foster missed just 10 of 76 meetings during the last term for an attendance rate of 86.8-percent. Now, many of you asked what this means or what is the point of all this information. Well, you and I voted for and are paying the Councilmembers and Mayor to represent our interests. One of the most important things they do, and some would argue this point, is conduct public Council meetings. The above information clearly shows that the City Councilmembers and Mayor take their attendance at City Council meetings as an important part of their jobs. As a side note: one of the ironies to come out of this is that while Councilmembers are part-time and most have day jobs they have to maintain, the full-time Mayor has the lowest attendance rate at City Council meetings. To be fair, though, the Mayor also has a day job (you know--being Mayor) and as the ceremonial head of the city he has many duties that might require him to miss a Council meeting. That's why we have the Vice-Mayor position after all. As to the meaning of the low number of Council meetings having a full Council in attendance, these numbers are not really an indication of anything other than perhaps proof that trying to align the schedules of nine part-time Councilmembers and a full-time Mayor are somewhat difficult over a two-year stretch. In fact, when you consider the number of absent Councilmembers per meeting, it is even more clear that the vast majority of Council meetings are well attended. Over the last two-year term there were only nine meetings, about 11-percent, that had seven or less Councilmembers present. As one commenter pointed out yesterday about the Council, "This is not [the City of] Bell." You're absolutely right, and the above information proves it--at least as far as attendance. The bottom line is that yesterday's article was flawed from the get go and you the reader deserve better. So, to CityBeat readers, I promise that I will do my very best to make sure something this sloppy does not happen again. And to the Councilmembers (and Mayor) I may have slighted in reporting inaccurate data, I apologize. Especially to Val Lerch. Because I really don't want anyone who can still smile after sitting through 76 consecutive City Council meetings to think I suck. Click here to read our policy on covering the Long Beach City Council.
Comments
Click Here to Join the Discussion on this Story
22 Comments so far.
LB Post Rocks! Now that's what I call journalistic integrity! Good job LB Post. Big step, in my opinion, of building public trust back after a few snafu's. Mike Ruehle As a frequent attender at City Council meetings, I can assure you it is a common practice for Councilmembers to show up for the beginning roll call and be absent for the majority of the meeting soon afterwards. This is especially common with the Mayor. He shows up to present awards and give away animals from the animal shelter and then is frequently absent from the rest of the meeting. NLBr Thank you for the clarifications. not a big fan of mike rue Common practice, eh, Mr Ruehle? Show us: On which dates did which councilmember do that? Please back up your malicious comments with some evidence. Or have the integrity to do what KH has done here and admit you were wrong. Our Right Thank you Keith for correcting the numbers. You are still missing a key point where the council members depart after the roll calling which should be considered basically as absent. I too believe the City Pay should be reposted, especially in light of the budget discussion. There was no legitimate and logical reason that warrants removal of that website. Instead of focusing on lower salaried City employees, there should be focus on decreasing the numbers of those making over $90K. In addition, Once again, City of Bell is not and should not even be discussed as the litmus test for any City. I posted the information below on the previous article but it will be relevant here as well. So, here you go. The fact of the matter is, as we know, the Council meeting is one venue where all the members are found at one place and where they make RECORDED votes on key policy issues. That is also the place where the public could address issues to them, even though we know they have limited the length of time and subject matter one can address at each meeting. That is another sad story. In addition, however, try and get the Mayor or any Council member to meet with an average person, on matters that the official or their gate-keepers do not feel is important for their image. This is despite the degree of importance the matter, which you want to address, is to the City or to you, the voter, who put them there. So, yes the degree by which we could hold the council accountable could not be based on the closed-door deals, or the number of their park visits, as implied. The council meeting is the key place where we could RECORD their opinion and hold them accountable for their performances. In addition, the council's job as indicated is only part-time. So, this is the more reason why that limited time should be efficiently utilized and attendance of over 96% should be the standard, just like those full-time employees. KeithH Mike, I can understand the perception that the Mayor or some of the Councilmembers seem to depart soon after the meetings begin. In fact, this perception of the Mayor;s attendance--from a Councilmember, no less--is what led me to review the meetings from the last Council term. However, as I learned, the evidence does not support the perception. In fact, there were only two instances in the 66 meetings that Mayor Foster attended during the last Council term where he left a meeting early. In one case he left about 30 minutes before the end of the meeting and in the other about halfway through. And as for the Councilmembers, it is true that each of them at one time or another has left a meeting early. However, in nearly every one of the 38 instances where this occurred during the last term, the departure was well after the 3/4 mark of each meeting. There were, at least from my review of the minutes from the last term's meetings, only two egregious instances where two separate Councilmembers did as you say. However, I have no idea if these were examples of real emergencies or just playing hookey. just some dude A. There are many opportunities to address councilmembers (though not often all at once) in committee meetings. B. Council meetings are a sliver of the councilmembers' time on duty. They spend much more time meeting with community stakeholders outside council. C. Yes, let's not limit the public's time to speak at council. They should be able to speak as long as they want. If council meetings last four days, so what? D. We need a fulltime council. E. I'd like to see any of these complainers on here hold down a fulltime job AND serve as an elected official at the same time, including giving up 3 out of 4 tuesday nights from 5 until 8, 9, 10, 11, even midnight, every month, for four years. What have YOU dont for your community lately? Or ever? KEITH: Thanks for coming correct Mike Ruehle Keith, I suspect your data is from the year leading up to the election when the Mayor and Council were on their BEST behavior. Let's see what happens now that the election is over and those elected officials don't have to worry about public perception for another 4-years. For instance, it has been reported that Councilwoman Lowenthall is taking the entire month of August off, at a time when budget discussions set the tone for the rest of the year. Another instance is DeLong's recently well publisized vacation in the tropics which caused him to miss the previous weeks City Council meeting rather than waiting until the last week of a month when Council meetings are not scheduled. Now that the elections are over, lets see how attendance fares coming out of the gate. Uncle Val Keith, I could never stay mad at you. I knew you would make it right. Some journalist would have just put a correction on page 19. Uncle Val says you don't suck. Jeff Gritchen As a famous man once said, "D'oh!" Resident Keith H. Don’t feel bad for reporting based on what the councils own records show. I cant believe that they are going to hold this against you with such a lousy excuse “its not that we were not there, some of us were just late, sometimes” I know that at my job being late is a problem and will be held against me. I say, hold on to your apology. If they kept proper records you may never have written the piece in the first place. Besides,In the future there poor records will be all thats left and they will show them as absent with nobody around to correct the record with some poor excuse. Jonathan Kraus Keith, thank you for the updated column with the corrections. Our Right Just some dude: The Counsel has their own variety of reasons as to why they took that office. One thing that is certain is that they all knew exactly how much of their time the job was going to take. If they are not able to commit to the work hours, then they should not take the job or keep seeking for second terms. In turn, the public should not care to vote for them either. End of story. Full time Council? WOW that suggestion just speaks volumes. Yes, why not? We should just add to the already bankrupt pension system, or even go to the balloon payment system, just like the real estate market. In regard to the Council meetings: they should of course not run forever, and no one gave that recommendation. Yet, when officials DECREASE the ALREADY LIMITED public’s time and ability to present suggestions, then we should all be concerned. In addition, if there is further attempt to decrease the number of days the Council is meeting, then the community is not served. These meetings are the only place the general public could address ALL of the Council that is charged to vote on matters that affect the City, at the same time. We already know about the closed-door stakeholder meetings that do not generate public records. Certainly, significant people who in good faith have attempted to provide legitimate suggestions have been turned away, just because the Officials or those gate-keepers do not believe it is worth their while. This does not encourage those good citizens or those stakeholders in their own rights, to continue and provide inputs or engage in processes. In regard to what some of us have done for the City; no one needs to justify their contribution to their own City in public forum, unless they are running for office and want to count scores. Just for the purpose of this discussion, however, even engaging in these kind of forums by itself is significant contribution; that is for those who could comprehend the process. same dude Our right: Showing up at your job 96% of the time is pretty damn good. That would be like taking less than 2 weeks off a year. Councilmembers are HUMAN; they have lives; things happen that prevent them from coming. It's not like they're sitting home sipping martinis. It's funny - you want the councilmembers to give their all, but you wont make them fulltime, so they have to have another job to pay the bills. Obviously this skews the council towards wealth, and towards being old, and towards having less time to devote to their duties. The Council are at least the ostensible representatives of the people; without them, who would have any oversight capability of the city bureaucracy? Answer: nobody. Fulltime council means more oversight, means a larger demographic that can hold that office, means less competing time pressures for each official. We are one of the largest - if not the largest - city in the US with a part time city council. It's ridiculous to ask these folks to do a fulltime job for parttime pay. And I dont think it's all inappropriate to ask what you are doing for your city, besides ranting on a blog comment thread. Complaints without positive suggestions, pointing fingers without carrying your own weight, is totally unhelpful, and a bit hypocritical. The idea that somehow the elected officials are entirely responsible for improving our community, and the only duty of residents is to whine about what they dont like (often without knowing all the facts) is deadly to democracy. Help carry the load or shut up! Our Right Same Dude: Ranting and raving? Constrictive inputs, even if you do not agree with the points, are not considered ranting and raving. That is an aspect of DEMOCRACY. Back to our City, yes, our City is large but we also have 9 districts and 9 council. No one person is carrying the burden of this large City independently. Anyone who took a position with the understanding of the time commitment and the specific job should be accountable for that job. If not, one should not have asked for the public support. The Council is expected to listen to inputs/suggestions or even complains from that same public that put them in office and gave them the official status they so much wanted. In addition, no one is suggesting that the Council is entirely responsible for improving our City. We are saying listen to the public even when it is not election time. It is a public knowledge that we cannot even afford the existing high salaries and pensions the City pays. More importantly, our City cannot afford full time Council salary. So, if you insist and have to have some idea, just FYI, as an example, I serve as a board member without pay, I attend community meetings, and serve underserved people on my own time without pay etc. I probably know more facts than you truly care to know. So, I do not care to run for office or advertise my contribution to my City to you or in public. But, rest-assure this is not a winner. Yes, what took place here is called freedom or speech and democracy. For those who understand the process, this is one way of providing inputs. Same Dude: Perhaps you could be kind enough to let us all know about the weight you are carrying for our City. Oh yeah did you say shut up? WOW classy, and very democratic, but no one is going to repeat such language, or lower their standard to that level, thank you. KeithH In case anyone was wondering, here is the calculation I used to determine the 96 percent rate for the average full-time worker: 365 days - 104 weekend days = 261 work days. Subtract 12 days (two weeks) for vacation and another nine for federal holidays and you have 240 work days. Then calculate: 100-[(100/240)*(10 sick days)] = 95.833 percent. Remember, this is just a rough average. Real mileage may vary. LBCityGirl If I were consistently 15-20 minutes late for meetings that were required for my job I'd get fired. Looking forward . . . to the day when the headline reads Council Much Better Than First Reported. Won't hold my breath. dude Our Right: I havent seen a single positive suggestion, except that councilmembers should be PERFECT in their council attendence, or shouldnt run for office. Of course, by this standard NO ONE would run for office, because NO ONE IS perfect, no one can promise with certainty to get to every meeting on time and stay the whole time for three weeks a month for four years. NO ONE. People get sick. Urgent matters arise suddenly. People make mistakes. Your demands are unrealistic, even irrational. Better off focusing on particular policy decisions and directions, rather than some ludicrous expectation that every councilmember should never miss a single minute of a council meeting. Our Right Dude: I guess inputs are positive, rational, and realistic only when you suggest them, and/or when you agree with them. We all know the City is in NO position to maintain the existing nonsensical high salaries, or to maintain the illogical pension payments. Yet, you proposed adding full time council positions, without regard to the City’s financial crisis. I presume this suggestion is not ludicrous because it was one of your outlined points. So, no further discussion is necessary. We all now see your point of view. As you indicated, you will want us to focus on particular policy decisions, and leave the bigger picture to you, good luck on that one. Ciao Dude. LBCityGirl Dude: You are wrong. These people are being PAID by us. The job description says they are responsible to attend council meetings, it even says when they will be held. When they run for office they are agreeing to this commitment. dude Like I said, - it's impossible not to miss any moments of any council meetings, and there is no job in the world where that is expected or possible. None of you never miss work - no one does. If you want the Council to spend more time serving the city, make them fulltime. And that could be done with barely any, if any, added expense. The presence of the councilmembers daily at city hall would mean less staff needed. It would also give them more time to find ways to cut fat in the bureacracy. You people are funny - you dont want rich interests to run the city, yet you support a system that totally slants that way by offering councilmembers PT time pay for what you obviously expect to be a FT time job. If you want more democracy, you need a FT council. Keith's stats, btw, show a council that has high attendence. Go look at other cities! Then go thank you councilmember for their hard work.
City Beat
Keith Higginbotham takes you inside City Hall and reports weekly on the decisions being made.
Keith Higginbotham is a freelance journalist and writer who most recently served as the West Coast editor for the trade magazine American Shipper, covering the shipping and logistics industries. Prior to this, he served as the Advertising and Multimedia Manager for the Port of Long Beach. He began his journalism career more than a decade ago as the Trade and Transportation beat reporter at the Long Beach Press-Telegram.
Keith's Community
 
Keith's Favorite Links
en.wikipedia.org huffingtonpost.com laobserved.com marvel.com/digitalcomics/ poynter.org
Keith's Archives
Show All Archives |
||||
| About Us | Contact Us | Policies | ||||
