posted by Mike Madison at 7:23 AM /
It's rare that a Mt. Lebanon authority makes a decision that I think is clearly wrong or clearly harmful.
The Commission's recent decision to ignore its own process for appointing volunteers to municipal boards is one of those rare, truly wrong moves.
Joe posted a link to the The Almanac story that reports the gist of the matter: The Commission posted a deadline for volunteers to apply to municipal boards. Several people applied after the deadline had passed. The Commission agreed to consider those applications and appointed some of those applicants -- without reopening the process so that others, who might have applied late but did not, out of respect for the original deadline, would have a chance to jump into the pool.
The majority's justification is that their goal is to identify the best candidates regardless of timing and that this sort of this happens in the business world. According to The Almanac, "Raja said in the private sector his aim is to place the best possible candidate for a job and not necessarily stick to a formal 'deadline' where no additional applicants will be accepted."
With all due respect to Raja and the majority of the Board, that justification is flat wrong. There are certainly times when running the Municipality more like a business is a good idea. This is not one of those times. Government authorities are held to different standards than businesses are when it comes to things like process, fairness, transparency, and accountability. If the Commission sets a public deadline for participating, then the Commission has a duty to stick with that deadline. Disregarding its own process in this case was unfair. It was transparent only in the technical sense that everyone at the meeting could see that the Commission was acting unfairly. The decisions on these appointments having been made and voted on, there is no going back.
When the commissioners who voted "yes" on these appointments are next up for re-election, consider holding them accountable.
Kudos to Commissioners Dan Miller and John Daley for objecting to what happened in this case.
The Commission's recent decision to ignore its own process for appointing volunteers to municipal boards is one of those rare, truly wrong moves.
Joe posted a link to the The Almanac story that reports the gist of the matter: The Commission posted a deadline for volunteers to apply to municipal boards. Several people applied after the deadline had passed. The Commission agreed to consider those applications and appointed some of those applicants -- without reopening the process so that others, who might have applied late but did not, out of respect for the original deadline, would have a chance to jump into the pool.
The majority's justification is that their goal is to identify the best candidates regardless of timing and that this sort of this happens in the business world. According to The Almanac, "Raja said in the private sector his aim is to place the best possible candidate for a job and not necessarily stick to a formal 'deadline' where no additional applicants will be accepted."
With all due respect to Raja and the majority of the Board, that justification is flat wrong. There are certainly times when running the Municipality more like a business is a good idea. This is not one of those times. Government authorities are held to different standards than businesses are when it comes to things like process, fairness, transparency, and accountability. If the Commission sets a public deadline for participating, then the Commission has a duty to stick with that deadline. Disregarding its own process in this case was unfair. It was transparent only in the technical sense that everyone at the meeting could see that the Commission was acting unfairly. The decisions on these appointments having been made and voted on, there is no going back.
When the commissioners who voted "yes" on these appointments are next up for re-election, consider holding them accountable.
Kudos to Commissioners Dan Miller and John Daley for objecting to what happened in this case.
17 Comments:
From the Almanac: "We are looking for the best people, and are not worried about time and artificial deadlines," said Commissioner Joe Deiuliis.
Not paying attention to deadlines is what got Mr. Deiuliis' Magnolia Land Development on the 07/10/08 School District Property Tax Lien List for 2007.
The tactics here are shameful.
I would like to know if Commissioners Raja and Deiullis would feel the same way if the tables were turned and the other commissioners would have asked them to extend the deadline for the receipt of applications even though the time had already passed. I highly doubt it. I agree with Bill and Mike on this. This is a shameful act by both of them.
The story seems to suggest that the Rs were so moved by the credentials of the tardy applicants that they couldn't possibly pass on them. Seems odd that these uber candidates would be so careless as to miss the application deadline.
And what exactly makes Citizen A more qualified than Citizen B to hold a seat on the traffic, parks or community relations board? I'm sure those timely applicants who were stiff-armed by the Commissioners would love to know what skills they lacked.
I just hope that these antics don't set volunteerism back a bit. No one signs up for a volunteer board spot to put up with this crap.
I think Thomas Jefferson was right:
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
Keep up the good work - Dan!
Perhaps this is why Commissioner Deiuliis was against broadcasting the meetings.
Elaine Gillen, Republican
Ignoring those "artificial deadlines" is exactly what took us down a long winding road that cost tens of thousands of Municipal and School District tax dollars, garnered $1.4 million in public assistance for Zamagias Properties and to date has left us with nothing but a new fence at the corner of Washington and Bower Hill Roads.
In the beginning ... there was an RFP from the MTL Parking Authority for development of its property. By the date of the Authority's decision meeting to select a project, only one (1) developer had made a complete submission. The Authority board, concerned for not having enough developers to pick from, voted to remove the item from the evening’s agenda and allow other developers additional time to meet the requirements.
Zamagias Properties was one of the developers with a weak submission. Zamagias Properties was also the developer whose project manager (for this very project) sat on the Authority board AND voted to remove the previosly referenced action item from the agenda - - thereby affording Zamagias Properties an additional opportunity to dress up its proposal.
Zamagias Properties missed on almost every other deadline (and got pass after pass) along their road to Oz. Of note, they were on time to pick up the $1.4 million in public assistance.
Now (reportedly) timing is the problem for Washington Park, with the economy in the dumper. I dare say - - Washington Park was in the dumper, long before the economy.
And worse yet, we have never learned the value of good process.
CORRECTION
In the beginning there was an RFQ - Request For Qualifications. The ultimate project proposals came later, after Zamagias Properties was afforded the opportunity to “qualify” subsequent to the published deadline. (By the published deadline, one developer had qualified, the Zamagias Properties original submission was deemed insufficient.)
The Municipality claiming to have learned from its mistakes in its previously unsuccessful attempt to build the emerald city, wanted to "pre-qualify" developers that might compete for this development. They absolutely did not want to repeat the earlier experience with a developer tying up the parcel for several years and never even getting a foundation poured.
Good process should be followed. It will help, not hinder. Good process messed with, should direct attention to the motivation of the messers.
I tried to post this earlier, but it didn't go through:
I, like Raja work in the corporate world but I have a very different take on missing deadlines. Any good leader in the corporate world will tell you that when people can't make reasonable application deadlines, its an early indicator of someone who doesn't have their act together.
The commission should disclose how many of the appointments submitted their applications before the posted deadlines.
I was one of those poor saps who submitted my application early only to be overlooked for people who were late. It does make one wonder if you need to be a mover and a shaker in order get onto a volunteer board. It's a shame that the commission has become so partisan. Still, I will continue to submit my name for future board positions. Perhaps the outrage of the community will force them to do the right thing next time.
Thank you Liz,for not giving up. It is a shame that the right thing wasn't done THIS time. I applaud Dan Miller and John Daley for wanting to do the right thing. Does this mean that I should vote to re-elect my commissioner the day after Election Day? Is that an artificial deadline too? I would like to try it and see.
I was another person that submitted my application prior to the deadline. I contacted Commissioner Raja and Deiuliis because I know them well and wanted to understand their position.
Both explained that my ward wasn't considered for the particular position. I had tried for a position on the community relations board. I still don't understand why the community relations board is ward specific, but I understand the process a little more.
However, I still agree with Tim and others that a deadline is a deadline. It is clear on the materials that the application was due on a specific date.
To be honest, the process seems to be a little unclear to the commissioners and to the public. Maybe a re-evaluation of the system overall is needed. I know that in the past the commissioners have had concerns of not filling positions, so maybe rules/guidelines were more flexible. Now that the community is more aware of these important positions and the desire to fill them has increased we might need to ask our commissioners to take a look at the process.
For example, my letter that notified me that I wasn't selected, said nothing about my ward not having an opening. It just was a simple you weren't selected and we will keep your resume on file.
Kelly Fraasch
Kelly:
I too was one of the citizens who dutifully submitted his application on time only to have it ignored in favor of people who submitted their applications late.
If any of the boards have requirements for equal representation across wards, it says nothing to that effect on the web page or application. In fact there is no place on the form to even designate wards. I guess Marcia Taylor must look up the ward locations for all applicants???
Either that or Raja and DeIulius were just giving you a story. I'm hoping it was the former.
To Dave's earlier post(which I agree with wholeheartedly): This does negatively impact my likelihood of serving on a community board, but somehow I don't think that really bothers certain commissioners.
I have lived in Mt. Lebanon for almost four years, having moved here from the Boston area. Each year, I dutifully submit my resume and application on time. The only difference is that this year they actually sent me a ding letter. In previous years, I was told if there was any interest someone woudl contact me.
Clearly this is all about who you know and your political party. In my town in Massachusetts I was an elected Town Meeting Member, was the Chair of the Personnel Committee, was appointed by the Board of Selectmen to our Vision Committee, and was a member of the economic development planning group. As an Independent in Mt. Lebanon, however, I am invisible.
It is a shame that volunteer boards are partisan. That said...sorry Commissioners...I'm not giving up. Centrist voices NEED to be heard in this town!
To Matt's point, I've come to believe that in Mt. Lebanon, your opinion only counts if you grew up in the area.
There are lots of new fresh ideas from people who didn't grow up in SW PA, but for some reason, those ideas aren't valued.
I would like to address the comments by Matt and Matthew.
First, I disagree with Matthew's statement that "your opinion only counts if you grew up in the area." Is there a bias in the area towards people who were born here? Sure, but I tend to see that less here in Mt Lebanon than in some of the city of Pittsburgh neighborhoods I lived in for 11 years prior to moving to Mt Lebanon. Two of our most opinionated commissioners, Dan Miller and Raja, were not born here. Their opinions obviously matter, and not being born here wasn't an obstacle for them getting elected to public office.
Now, Matt's statement about "this is all about who you know and your political party" is more complicated.
Are party politics involved in the decision making process? Yes, most definitely, but that doesn't mean that the Republicans on commission won't vote for a Democrat, and vice versa. I'm sure that now that there is more balance in terms of party registration in Mt Lebanon, not to mention 2 out of 5 commissioners being Democrats, the centrist and non-partisan voices are being heard, though. I don't know what it's like on other boards but the EDC is pretty much 50/50 party wise.
Your point about "it's all about who you know" happens to be true. When the commissioners have stacks of applications to choose from a few vacant seats on the boards the tendency is to pick people they know, or know of. Since the Republicans are most likely to know other Republicans in town, it makes sense that they would lean towards more Republican applicants, same for the Democrats. Part of this is on the applicant though. If you want to be on a board it makes sense to get to know the commissioners. I consider myself a centrist Democrat and was selected for the EDC about six months after I moved here. Prior to moving here I was introduced to Raja because the individual who made the introduction knew that I, like Raja, had an entrepreneurial bent. I was also introduced to Dan Miller because it was known that I am into Democratic politics. It's called networking, and I think if you want to be on a board bad enough you should make the effort to network and get to know your commissioners. Their emails are on the Mt Lebanon municipal website.
Now, in the cases where some of the the selections, or non-selections were because of partisan politics, and this happens more to Democrats who apply because of the balance of power in the commission tipping to the R's, I would say that your best option is to get out there and support a candidate for office so that the party balance swings in your favor. There is a commission race for Ward 4 this year. Has there ever been a Democratic majority in Mt Lebanon before? Whether you are a Democrat, Republican, or Independent I think Mt Lebanon is better off being a purple town like it is now rather than deep red or blue.
Schultz, that was perfect!
And by the way, my last comment was addressing concerns raised by the two previous commenters. In terms of what actually went down this time with them selecting candidates who applied after the deadline, well, I just think it's BS. It is one thing to play favorites to committee people and members of your own party but when you use your advantage on the commission to ignore the rules, well, it's no wonder people are so distrustful of you.
As I said in my last post, these board decisions seem to be based more on party affiliation, personalities, and how well the commission knows candidate X over candidate Y rather than someone's resume. I don't think qualifications play as much of a part in the decision making process, so Commissioner Joe D. saying "We are looking for the best people, and are not worried about time and artificial deadlines," is not only disingenuous - it is insulting.
Post a Comment
<< Home