With the public’s attention diverted this past spring by the Proposition 2 ½ override initiative, Northampton’s Mayor Mary Clare Higgins successfully proposed creating a new Office of Community and Economic Development and has nominated her Economic Development Coordinator, Teri Anderson, to serve as its head. The City Council recently approved the new department but it remains unclear as to whether or not it will require the position to be publicly advertised. During various public meetings and debates mayoral frontrunner Michael Bardsley has raised the issue of Affirmative Action guidelines with regards to advertising the position.
The department will be funded primarily with federal Community Development Block Grant monies and $6 thousand from the city’s general fund. In advocating for her proposal Higgins convinced a majority of City Council members to approve a new department without providing for them a long range plan for its fiscal wellbeing while claiming the move will save the city money.
Higgins makes this assertion because she is shifting a portion of Anderson’s salary from the city’s general budget to grant funds. Higgins said at the April 13 Economic Development, Housing and Land Use Committee meeting the money freed up in the general fund could be used to fund a police officer while the mayor’s office will have less staffing support.
However, in my view this does not save the city money per se; rather it simply restructures how public funds are used and results in a zero sum game. In the future extracting additional grant funds for the department head’s salary may result in less direct grant funding for low and moderate income residential programs or for infrastructure improvements in eligible areas.
Typically relying on grant monies to fund departments is risky because those funds have a tendency to evaporate at times. Figure 1 below illustrates how Community Development Block Grants to the city have declined about 18% in the past nine years inclusive, from $918 thousand in 2001 to about $755 thousand in 2009. (These figures do not adjust for inflation or include the additional $201 thousand the city received this year for the James House Community Learning Center under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, a one-time allocation.)
Figure 1
So how did the new department come about? On May 11 of this year with Higgins in attendance as its chairperson and voting yes, the city’s EDHLU Committee approved the proposal unanimously with little discussion noted in the minutes. Besides Higgins the EDHLU is comprised of some of her supporters on the Council: James Dostal, Maureen Carney, Paul Spector and Robert Reckman.
In contrast the Ordinance Committee first took up the issue at its June 8 meeting without a representative present from Higgins’ office. Instead attending the meeting was then-City Solicitor Janet Sheppard who has since been deposed from office due to the alleged destruction of public records related to $1.2 million in landfill settlements.
By the time the issue was on the table for discussion the Ordinance Committee was minus a member because current Ward 4 City Councilor David Narkewicz excused himself early from the meeting leaving only Bardsley and Reckman to deliberate. Sheppard, along with Reckman, assured Bardsley that the proposed department needed to go forward as part of the fiscal year 2010 budget process. They argued that in order for Anderson’s new position to be grant-eligible it could not be based in the mayor’s office per federal guidelines. Their statements would later prove to be false.
Bardsley was not comfortable continuing without more information and discussion. Though Reckman twice motioned for the Ordinance Committee to recommend the Council create the department, each time Bardsley declined to second the motion preferring instead to discuss it at the committee's next regularly scheduled meeting in early July.
The next day during a City Council budget briefing Bardsley's only supporter on the Council, Ward 6 City Councilor Marianne LaBarge, asked Higgins if Anderson would be getting, “a higher raise,” as the director of a new department. Higgins replied,
The answer is no, councilor, she’s not. Everybody in that department would be paid for out of grant funds.
During the briefing Bardsley asked Higgins if the statements Sheppard made the day before regarding the federal guidelines were accurate. Higgins stated,
Janet is not working in my office. It’s not true that it can’t be supervised (in the mayor’s office). What I am trying to do is put it on the books, which is I think what—Janet may have misunderstood what I said to her.
Higgins then apologized for not sending a representative to the previous day’s meeting.
Bardsley commented further on the lack of a budget for the proposed department and asked whether Anderson would receive a pay increase in the future as a department head. Higgins responded,
It depends on the grade and we’re not looking at that for this year. It may or may not; I haven’t looked at it in terms of the grade. It’s a fairly highly graded position; it may not change it at all. I don’t remember the grade but it may not change it at all.
Higgins added,
The only difference really is the supervision of two people.
Currently Anderson does not supervise a staff as the city’s Economic Development Coordinator thus the change would be adding to the scope of her responsibilities.
During the briefing Planning Director Wayne Feiden said his department would lose the equivalent of about three full time employees to the new department with remaining personnel absorbing various tasks like staffing the Historical Commission, an agency that does not receive CDBG funds. Higgins further stated she and Feiden do not agree on the necessity of the move. Feiden abstained from speaking on his disagreement with Higgins’ proposal when directly asked to by Councilor M. LaBarge. When queried for this article Feiden declined to comment.
The same day Narkewicz and Reckman moved to force a special meeting of the Ordinance Committee in order to again address the proposed department and send a positive recommendation on to the City Council. At about 4:00 PM on June 9 Sheppard sent City Council Clerk Mary Midura an email,
Confirming that two councilors, Reckman & Narkewicz can call an emergency meeting of the Ordinance Committee to discuss ordinances that were on the agenda for June 8th.
Historically Sheppard responded on behalf of councilors only if Higgins granted them access to the solicitor.
But was this an emergency? The Massachusetts Open Meeting Law guidebook states in part,
Emergency is defined as “a sudden, generally unexpected occurrence or set of circumstances demanding immediate action.” The emergency in question must be one that relates directly to the functions and responsibilities of the governmental body convening the meeting; it cannot be an emergency brought on by the needs or requirements of a person or entity not related to the governmental body.
Bardsley believed the meeting proposed by Reckman and Narkewicz did not meet this standard and he responded on June 10, after consulting Robert’s Rules of Order which guide city council deliberations. By way of email Bardsley questioned Sheppard on her legal opinion that two members of a committee may call an emergency or special meeting to discuss agenda items that have been previously considered at a regularly scheduled committee meeting. He wrote in part,
I can find no such provision either in the city’s ordinances or in the council’s rules which allows two members to call a special or emergency meeting under the current circumstances. Thus, I have to conclude that the meeting you allowed to be scheduled for Thursday night is not a properly posted meeting.
In her response Sheppard ignored Bardsley’s position regarding the emergency status of the meeting and persisted in addressing only Bardsley’s comments on the posting of the meeting in part,
It is my understanding that the meeting of June 11th, 2009 was posted by Mary Midura, in accordance with the Open Meeting Law. So long as the meeting is posted and open to the public there is not a violation of the Open Meeting Law. I suggest that if you have a concern about these Ordinances, these concerns should be addressed in Public, not by email. Continuing to have a dialog over email, may in fact be a violation of the Open Meeting Law. I am cautioning you to stop having this discussion over email and rather have it at the Public Meeting, which was duly posted for June 11th, 2009. You all can address your concerns in open session at that time.
However that meeting was not held. After a scheduled joint meeting with the Planning Board the Ordinance Committee convened on June 11 at approximately 7:20 PM in Feiden’s City Hall office in order to vote on another matter. According to Bardsley as the meeting concluded he and Narkewicz agreed to cancel the supposed emergency meeting of the committee scheduled for 8:00 PM leaving a, “CANCELLED,” sign on the door of Feiden’s second floor office. Bardsley asserts that he was not going to attend the meeting because of his aforementioned concerns and Narkewicz capitulated. Nor was Higgins present to answer questions in the event the committee did meet.
On June 12 the Daily Hampshire Gazette first reported on the issue and informed the public of the panel’s inaction regarding the new department,
The Ordinance Committee will take up the issue again at a regular monthly meeting scheduled for July 6, after the City Council votes on the fiscal 2010 budget that, if approved, would create the new department anyway.
In this context Bardsley and M. LaBarge voted against the mayor’s 2010 budget on first reading at the June 18 City Council meeting because they presumed it would create the new department. In voting no Bardsley expressed concerns over creating a new department during difficult financial times and questioned whether funding a department almost entirely with Block Grant money is wise. Higgins replied,
Okay, I’m going to stop talking about the big picture.
Oddly enough Higgins has been in line with Bardsley’s reasoning regarding departments funded with Block Grants. During the June 9 budget briefing she stated she is always worried about CDBG funding and that historically she has lessened the Planning and Development Office’s dependency on it. In 2002 approximately 40% of Feiden’s salary came from CDBG funds and that figure stands at about 10% today. Moreover, according to the April 13 minutes of the EDHLU meeting the mayor said regarding her proposal,
Yes, this is a deliberate effort on my part to remove the Planning Director’s position from the whims of block grant funding. At one point I feared that the City’s CDBG funding would disappear eventually.
If grant funds decline in the future while there is upward pressure on salaries, where does that leave local taxpayers not to mention those served in the community?
Prior to the second council budget vote June 18 Higgins corrected the perception that approving the budget would create the new department, asserting rather that approving the budget would merely allow her to access CDBG funds for a majority of Anderson’s $60 thousand annual salary. Thereafter Bardsley and M. LaBarge relented voting to approve the budget.
During the Council’s deliberations a visibly disturbed Narkewicz repeatedly expressed his frustration that the Ordinance Committee had not been able to both deliberate on the matter and send a recommendation on to the full council in time for that night’s meeting. Ironically had Narkewicz not excused himself early from the June 8 meeting the Ordinance Committee may have done just that.
The issue of the new department surfaced again at the July 6 Ordinance Committee meeting where Higgins asserted,
There is no legal reason why I have to do this but I think there’s very good philosophical and programmatic reasons to do it.
Higgins wished to separate the city's planning functions from its economic development functions. In her view this separation means the Office of Planning and Development will no longer serve as a proponent of a given initiative while also serving as a regulatory body. Bardsley has argued that under the old model Teri Anderson, as the city's Economic Development Coordinator, could have served as an initiative's proponent while the Planning Office provided regulatory oversight. Higgins also encouraged committee members to stop thinking about the proposal in terms of Anderson but rather as a municipal position.
When Bardsley took the floor he inquired:
Bardsley: Do we have a–has there been a cost analysis, let’s call it, done for the position in the future?—that the funding for a department head over let’s say the next several years.
Higgins: I haven’t done that.
Bardsley: Is that going to look any different in terms of expenses?
Higgins: I doubt it. I doubt it.
Bardsley: Would that be easy enough to have done?
Higgins: I could look at it. I mean right now I can tell you that we’re going into next year and I would be very surprised if any department heads got any raises next year too, given the fiscal situation of the state, so…
Bardsley: But taking as you say the big picture.
Higgins: Well if I take the long run, you know, our department heads have averaged in the four percent range. We would fund most of that, as much as we could out of the block grant–any increases coming from the block grant. We did see a small increase this year so I’m more optimistic about block grant being able to help funds those kinds of things.
Higgins then acknowledged there is a risk the city could lose the Economic and Community Development function under this new model because of the sometimes precarious nature of grant funding. It is a gamble she is willing to take however, leaving it up to future mayors and councils to decide whether to continue funding the department with local dollars through the budgetary process.
Meanwhile the creation of the new department became a foregone conclusion in the media. On August 11, before the Council approved its creation, the Gazette reported,
In the mayor’s office, Finance Director Christopher Pile has swapped offices with Teri Anderson, the city’s economic development coordinator who has recently taken the helm of a new department call the Office of Economic and Community Development.
The move brings Anderson closer to the CDBG staff that she now oversees. Her position as economic development coordinator in the mayor’s office has been eliminated, and her new position is being funded by the city’s Community Development Block Grant and other federal grants.
City crews installed a new door to her office, giving Anderson access to the adjacent CDBG offices.
Higgins said the door and its trim were all reused from other city buildings and that the work was done during regular business hours, rather than paying overtime.
Since then during public meetings Bardsley concedes it is an idea with merit but also believes this is not the right climate with which to create a new department due to city layoffs. Should Block Grant funding decline in the future, he argues, we will be without some very important positions, positions the city will be hard pressed to do without.
Moreover, Bardsley believes the position should be publicly advertised in order to abide by Affirmative Action guidelines. Merely appointing Anderson to the position precludes among others minorities and disabled persons from applying for the job and does little to flush out what would be best for the city in terms of its economic future. In fact, failure to post the position could invite an Affirmative Action lawsuit against the city. Higgins has nominated one candidate, Anderson.
In my view with the rate of unemployment on the rise the region’s talent pool is growing thus the city should conduct a search in order to ascertain what skills and attributes are available on the open market and to insulate itself from potential litigation. This is in line with existing practices as recently the city advertised for a new Director of the Health Department.
An ongoing process of examining and sometimes reorganizing city functions makes sense, but Anderson’s present position as the city’s Economic Development Coordinator could have been funded with CDBG funds in the short term while the Council thoroughly examined the costs, benefits and projected outcomes of creating a new layer of bureaucracy dependent mostly on grant monies. Since the Council has now approved the new department applying due diligence in publicly advertising for the position would ensure the best possible outcome for the city. Anything less will constitute a failure on the part of the Council to serve the best interests of the public.
In the end Anderson may well prove to be the best fit for the city. This will be difficult to determine however absent a thorough and rigorous hiring process. I believe City Council members should back up their Best Practices rhetoric with concrete actions. They should advertise the position and let the process lead where it may.
(Video records provided by Mary Serreze of NorthamptonMedia.com and Northampton Community Television were consulted for this story.)
