In Defense of A Decision

Submitted by Councilman James Streeto

"chickens---t (v) the act of walking into a meeting to vote on an appointment, and being confronted by several dozen people, a number of
whom are carrying loaded firearms, including the prospective employee, who all argue passionately in favor of the appointment, and voting against it....."

hmm.... not sure I get it.  But thanks for the apology, although I'm not sure its necessary to apologize after such an acrimonious meeting.  Can we just agree that everyone was upset?

Thanks also, Chief McMahon, for being a gentleman throughout the process.

Ok, I'm not here to present anyone's position but my own.  It differs from some of my caucusmembers in important respects.  If you don't agree with it, and if you're questioning my judgment folks, that's your prerogative (and, indeed, your duty as informed citizens)--its a free country as of 1/20/2009: 

(http://us.peeplo.com/search/?q=obama%20inauguration&type=web&from=adgsp )

And I'm happy to talk about my decision (civilly or otherwise) until the cows come home. (Ed: you're not the first person to yell at me in the council chamber.  You're not even the first one this year.... seems to be a monthly occurrence).

But folks, if you're going to accuse me of "groupthink," "lockstep," or "hypocrisy", I think the conversation can be better continued without my input.  My votes and my reasons are my own; and no one tells me what to think.

As for my reasons--I thought I laid them out last night.  Apparently, not very well.  So I'll try again:

For me, this whole thing really started in August.  And, actually, you sortta started it Ed:

http://middletowneyenews.blogspot.com/2010/08/mayor-blasts-council-members-for.html

Oh, those lovely Middletown rumors!  "the fix is in".  You've heard it, right?  (don't make me come over there.  you live in Middletown, you've heard it.  you live in Middletown, you've SAID it). By the time I heard this, the whole town was buzzing.  And they got more ridiculous and/or disturbing by the day.

After discussing some of these allegations and hearing other rumors, I felt it was incumbent to obtain some information about the process used for selection, in order to figure out whether any of the rumors were true, and, if so, whether they might impact on the vote, or create potential liability for the city.

Part of the reason, as detailed below, was the possibility of a candidate having been eliminated from consideration altogether by the mayor (I didn't know then and don't know now if that is true or not). Part of it was that I'm really tired of "the behind the scenes" and whispering campaign crap accompanying every major endeavor in this community. I was hoping for a more open procedure and determination on the strengths and weaknesses of the particular candidate.

And part of it, honestly, was a function of occupation and personality. Lawyers worry about process.  Criminal lawyers worry about process A LOT.  Appellate lawyers do nothing BUT worry about process. If you're unhappy about that, please don't vote me into office again.

Here's the email I sent:

Dear Mayor Giuliano:

As you are probably aware, our community is currently awash in rumors and debate concerning the police chief appointment.  There is a great deal of information I will require concerning the PROCESS of selection, which is where most of the rumors and debate seem to be centering.

The personnel review commission meets on September 21; I would propose they act as a sort of a fact finding committee for the council, and provide us with the following data, together with any additional data other members of the body might feel appropriate:

1. As you know, the council passed an advisory resolution in January concerning the process.  At the time, you noted you need not follow the procedure laid out, or any other. 

Your references to the trained monkey method tickled my sense of humor, but I presume it is not the method you utilized (if it is, I'll need to know the age, genus, gender, and color of the monkey, the size of the pictures, number of darts thrown, distance from the wall, and whether any other communities have utilized this method).  I would like the details on the method utilized, as follows:

a. We recommended use of a consultant.  Was one hired?  If so, which one, and who is our contact there?

b. Did they provide written protocols for a procedure?  Can we obtain these?

c. Who actually conducted the testing? Is it possible to obtain detailed information concerning any and all tests: I would like to see both detailed test ANSWERS, and, almost as importantly, I would like to see the actual tests administered. 

I would like to know how the specific tests utilized were chosen.  Were they recommended?  If so, by whom?  Are there any other tests? 

If any written materials were provided in the course of the testing, either to the candidates from the City or testers, or to the city or the testers by the candidates, I would like to see those as well. 

c. Was the consultant's advice and recommendations advice strictly followed?  If not, what deviations from it occurred?

d. Civilian panels were called in this case, according to the press. I presume this to be true.  Can you please provide their membership, and any records/reports they generated?  Presuming the Middletown Eye is accurate in indicating they gave each candidate a numerical grade, what criteria did they use to do so (I presume it wasn't the monkey method).  Did they generate any additional written material?

e. The Eye indicates you eliminated one candidate from consideration based upon alleged meetings between said candidate and members of the common council.  Is this true?  If so, were the candidates warned of this in advance?  Is this standard for Middletown? 

Are there standard confidentiality/disclosure agreements for directoral appointments and the interview process?  Do we have copies of whatever parameters were given to the candidates in advance?  May I see them?

f. Prior to so eliminating said candidate, did you discuss this matter with our consultants or a labor lawyer?  Did they provide any written recommendations? Can we have copies of this material as well?  If not, what is your basis for concluding that the candidate is disqualified?

g. Have any other candidates had discussions with other councilmembers, including members of the minority caucus?  Have Councilmembers Bibisi, Pessina, Bauer or Kleckowski met with any candidates?

Have you discussed the process ex parte with any of the candidates, specifically those in the acting chief and acting deputy chief positions?  Are there any records of said discussions? 

I note the Eye reports your statement that Acting Chief McMahon is "free to lobby [the majority caucus members]."  Can you please reconcile for me why the Acting Chief is free to discuss the appointment ex parte, while another candidate was disqualified for allegedly doing the same thing?  Is it because he has now been formally appointed?  Why does this make a difference?

I recognize that this is a burdensome body of material to assemble, which is why I am requesting it now, in late August, a month before the PRC meets, rather than immediately before the Council meeting. This will also give all of us time for follow up requests, should the material provided generate additional questions. I will defer to PRC as to whether there is additional material it might require, but reserve the right to make further inquiry at a later time. 

I appreciate your attention to this request. 

Jim Streeto 

I sent this in late August, providing ample time to assemble the material requested. I honestly had no agenda: I wanted to find out, first, what happened, and then figure out what if anything it meant.

What I figured would happen is that I'd be ushered into room 208, handed 3 bankers' boxes of material, and told "Jimmy, go wild." This is what NORMALLY happens when I ask for documentation--honestly, I can't remember ever being denied an informational request before and this is my 6th term.

Instead, I received a very prompt and courteous response, advising me that it was covered by FOIA.

Horsefeathers!  The FOIA rules cited address requests by members of the public, NOT members of the decision making body (in this case, the council).  As I mentioned at the meeting, the same section covers litigation documents--would you expect me to vote on a 2 million dollar lawsuit settlement without documents?   We're given confidential material on a very, very frequent basis--are these FOIA violations?  This is equivalent to your doctor's nurse making your doctor get a HIPAA release from you before she lets him have your chart. 

I then asked if I could see the material, nevertheless, and was told I could not.  As mentioned at the meeting--kudos to Deb Milardo, who was very prompt and courteous and gave me everything the mayor allowed her to release.  But that still left me with "most of the information" I'd requested (quote from the answer) still out of my hands.  

This was my principle reason for voting against the Chief's appointment.  I've been told by a good many people now that I have no right to judge the process--but I'm neither a potted plant nor a parade float.  If you put a lawyer in office, he'll ask questions about the process if questions about the process are raised. They were raised by both sides in this case--so I asked questions. I received no answers.  To this day, I do not have answers, and do not know if the process was appropriate or not.

Just so I get it: anyone wanna take a stab at how many times I've been told "you guys [ie the common council] have no idea what's going on?"  Can someone tell me why I catch so much wreck the minute I ask questions designed to inform me what's going on?

Ed--as for the positives and negatives of the candidate--my principle reservation (which I referenced to you without disclosure after the meeting) was the one I was told by the mayor and the city attorney NOT to publicly discuss.  You were sitting there when I was told this--but I've been told you have been told you have one of the letters referenced at the meeting.  Whether this would have swayed me if I'd been given the material requested I honestly don't know-right now its really hard to walk things back that far. It is a significant concern.  Counterbalancing it are the many community voices I heard Monday (which did influence my thinking on the candidate) and the several other directors who spoke in his favor (who swayed me more, as I am a strong proponent of better inter-departmental relations).

Finally, as for residency, I was not on the council when Patrick McMahon first came to the city, and have NEVER been presented with a residency waiver request for him.  And if you present me one, I'll vote for it.

How many of my colleagues decided the question on the same reasoning I don't know.  They're grown ups, and can post for themselves.

As for the question about republicans voting as a block--respectfully, Ed, that isn't true, and it isn't an answer. Does being in the minority excuse a legislator from responsible behavior?  If so, heaven help us if the republicans really do gain control of the Congress in November.

So now you all know why I voted as I did.  I voted as I did because I was NOT given material I said I'd NEED to vote to confirm the Chief SIX WEEKS before the meeting.  If you don't think I needed it--fine.  Don't vote for me next year--this is an important issue.  You don't have to get defensive or angry about it--I accept that its a major judgment call on which we disagree.

But please stop accusing me of marching in step.  I got a lotta witnesses from my high school band days who will swear up down and sideways I've never been guilty of THAT.