Surfing the waives.
by joe murphy
I had a dream.
The nine members of the city council were churning through the various budget items they had to vote on and they pause on one in particular. “2024-055 – Ordinance – Amending Municipal Code – Chapter 72 – Article 1 – Job Classifications and Salaries, Sec. 72-1 - Official Salary Schedule – Mayor”, The Council president, Ian Caine, announces loudly and clearly, “we are scheduled to vote on this as it cleared Finance at the last meeting. However, since then, we’ve seen vigorous opposition and I know a few of us in the body felt that it would be careless to continue without more discussion.”
Councilor Minton speaks up at this point, “Mr. President, can I speak to this?” The floor is given to Councilor Minton, who begins to unpack many of the concerns of the residents. “First, the Dorminson report recommended an unexpectedly large increase in pay for both the mayor and the council. Simple cost justification principles dictate that we need a second analysis to either confirm or dispute Dorminson’s findings. Not only was their recommended increase far larger than expected, but their methodology was also highly unorthodox. Instead of comparing Mayor Koch’s salary with mayors of similar cities, they chose to compare it with city managers. While these functions have overlap, they are entirely different types of jobs. It is unclear why Dorminson would choose to make this comparison when a robust data set from the thousands of mayors across the country already exists?”
Another city councilor speaks up, “A lot of my constituents are dismissing the Dorminson report as a report that started with a conclusion and worked backwards.”
At this point I start to feel lighter and proud as it seems like we have a city council who represent the concerns of those they are elected to represent. But then, the scene turns strange. Several of the councilors turn into FastFood mascots and I feel confused and a bit creeped out.
As it turns out, the Council’s sudden turn towards sensibility proved to be a product of my imagination, a figment of sensibility stored in the same place as a mishmash of fast-food marketing. What happened in real life made less sense and was more upsetting.
To no one’s surprise, despite hundreds of signatures and comments from residents asking for their elected representatives to pause on the 79% raise for the mayor and the 50-something % raise for themselves, both votes went through with nearly no questioning. The council did reduce their raise by about 5%, with no explanation as to where that number came from, but no one spoke up for the residents who have clearly expressed objection. It’s hard to believe that such a significant change, which will cost taxpayers millions of dollars in the ensuing decades, had almost no one questioning it. Aside from Councilor Minton, who has come out against it and suggested lower numbers (though did not propose any changes), it seemed many were in lockstep with the same talking points. In fact, at the June 3rd meeting, there were a few jokes about how what they had to say was samesies.
It's strange that there was so much repetitive agreement over such a contentious issue.
Perhaps most upsetting is the actual conduct of the meeting. I have been attending meetings for seven years and, if I’m being honest, I can attest to the fact that the meetings are very hard to follow at times. Mass.Gov defines Robert’s Rules of Order, the Parliamentary Procedure used by most cities and towns (including Quincy), as 'rules for conduct at meetings that allow everyone to be heard and to make decisions without confusion.' Reading over these rules, it’s clear that they are meant to prevent a system where meeting attendees shout at and over each other. While RRoR does seem to prevent a cacophony of shouting and opinions, it is not easy for the uninitiated to decipher. The Councilors, perhaps in an attempt to be efficient with time and to get home at a reasonable hour, often rush through sections.
They speak quickly, move their faces away from the microphones, and mumble when engaged in the parliamentary parts of the meeting (motions, seconds, votes). In contrast, they speak slowly and elegantly when thanking or praising one another, city staff, or guests. They waive readings of ordinances without regard for the people in the audience who are there to understand what is happening. I think it would be very hard for a visually or hearing-impaired person to follow along.
This past Monday was confusing enough that at least one city councilor did not understand what they were voting for. Kudos to that councilor for being honest about it the next day. It was brave and refreshing to see a Quincy City Councilor explain that they misunderstood something that was happening. I wonder how many votes over the years went one way or another because a councilor (or five) got lost in the parliamentary bog.
On the off chance that any of the Councilors read this, I am sure we agree that the meetings should not be confusing. The people of Quincy, elected officials included, should be able to follow and understand what is happening.
I’ve compiled a best-of reel from Monday’s meeting to catch you up on the salary issues and to illustrate how difficult these meetings can be to follow, even to the initiated.
I am not accusing the City Council of using mumbling and waiving as a way to deflect criticism, although some may. I do think they want to get through the meetings, which have been known to stretch into the wee hours. I just wish they’d reduce the time by perhaps praising each other less and keeping thank yous shorter, etc. It would be beneficial to take a moment to explain what is happening beyond niceties and keep people informed, even if they oppose your position. True professionalism is shown by serving those who disagree with you.
Finally, this might be comforting or terrifying, but it seems local governments work the same wherever you are. Here’s comedian, Brian Regan, talking about his experience with his city’s council.
