Our unelected city manager needs to reign in the integrity regarding the public process of boards and commissions. City staff have succeeded in making it the norm that when a public board or commission is charged with creating a capital plan or recommendation to the City Council, two plans are submitted — the public’s plan and city staff’s plan. The redundancy on the city staff’s part is confusing at first, after all, staff spend months walking the public board or commission through the steps of creating a bona-fide plan. So why would staff be so inefficient as to work simultaneously on two plans, one behind closed doors? Money and assurance.

Consider the evidence. Last year the City Council heard two plans for downtown rezoning — one from the Planning Commission and one from staff. Currently, the council is hearing two proposals for the Park at Bothell Landing Master Plan — one from the Park Board and one from staff. Park staff’s 11th-hour proposal took everyone by surprise suggesting systematic behind the scenes work. What do these examples have in common that warrant the protection of a city staff proposal? Money.

When an institution invests $20 million into a capital project (the downtown plan), that institution is going to do whatever it takes to protect their investment — as it should. However, when that institution is our local government (guided by an unelected city manager) and protecting that investment is more relevant than a public board or commission, we may have a conflict of interest. The message is clear: have the downtown plan (and adjacent park plan) go through a thorough public process, but don’t veer too far off the mark. Ultimately the city has to sell this rezoned land back to developers and developers want a happy public. Ironically what our local government is protecting is public perception. To ensure the “right” information is presented to the City Council, will there always be a staff proposal separate from the public board or commission?

Forsake true pubic direction for the almighty dollar. Because we really have no other choice, right? The investment is too large to fail, so we need to leave it to the government to tell us what is best (hmm, where have it heard that before?). Oh, they may argue that our legally mandated public process is legit. Pubic boards and commissions … exist … and they talk for months on end offering a few tweaks here are there. But all this begs the question, why have public boards and commissions if staff is simply going to circumvent the process if they don’t get their way? I hesitate to call on the City Council to issue an integrity check. They are well aware of this breakdown and their lack of comment suggests they are OK with it. In addition, some are pouring on the re-election swagger pretty thick. We’ll give you a few meetings to feel reassured, but how about coming back in 2010 recommending a renewed sense of integrity in the public process?

Adam Brauch

Bothell