By David Anderson, Tillicum
“Building trust in government” – the concern raised in the last paragraph of Lakewood City Manager Andrew Neiditiz’s column in the fall “Lakewood Connections” recently delivered to mailboxes throughout the city – is placed here in the first paragraph since the topic of trusting government merits discussion of highest importance given recent local developments.
As residents of Tillicum prepare to go to court to defend community values having been overruled by city staff – which staff-decision was supported by City Council – trust is at an all-time low.
In the very next sentence – the last sentence, the final word – that concludes his column, Neiditiz reflects a major philosophical difference, with significant practical consequences, as to how – in the City Manager’s view – trust in government is built and, in our view, lost.
“A major challenge in today’s world is building trust in government,” writes Neiditz. “I believe that citizens, who are the stakeholders on public services and public policy issues, want and expect their local government administrators to have positive and professional working relationships with their local government colleagues, in order to achieve efficiencies and productive results in the delivery of programs and services.
The style of government Neiditz advocates is that of the vending machine. This metaphor, originated by Rick Cole, former mayor of Pasadena, California is the traditional concept of government as a service provider – kicking out services for taxes deposited.
It also explains the reason why “citizens have lost confidence in all institutions, including local government,” writes Frank Benest, city manager of Palo Alto, California. “In the past, people had less confidence in federal and state government but trusted local government because it was ‘closer to the people.’ Disenchantment with all major institutions, particularly government, now affects local government as well.”
The alternative to the vending machine, Benest suggests, is the ‘closer to the people’ model which Benest refers to as “the ‘barn-raising’ approach (that) requires significant outreach and building of rapport with individuals, families, and groups in a targeted neighborhood.”
Tillicum most certainly is the target in the targeted neighborhood but for lack of barn-raising, Tillicum is raising hell.
Whereas barn-raising, writes Benest, requires “cities and counties to literally compete on a daily basis for people’s hearts and minds” vending machines compete only for people’s wallets.
Whereas barn-raising council members recognize, celebrate, and encourage “residents’ strong sense of family and support for each other” the vending machine mentality in contrast chiefly is more interested in counting the cash contributions of consumers.
There is “no real community participation” or interaction with vending machines. Even when government employs the “’tell-and-sell’ mode” it’s essentially only a “new and improved model of the vending machine.” Benest writes, “After local government agencies have made a decision they try to sell it, often with little success and much negative reaction and mistrust in the decision-making process.”
Commercialism, not citizen-centricism, drives most government, certainly ours. Who is the most recent hire by Lakewood? An Economic Development Specialist. What changed the minds of city staff such that the substantial issues raised opposing the gate last year were ‘answered’ this year? The bonuses added to Camp Murray’s proposal – $1.5 million dollars.
And yet before the cart began leading the horse, if there was such a time, it was when the customer aka the citizen – not “local government colleagues” per Neiditz – was king. Some companies, seldom government – unless they’re seeking your vote – put the emphasis on the correct syllable. Business owner Alexander Douglas wrote, “Businesses (or for that matter governments) that treat customers as subservient to them misunderstand the role of the customer as the employer.”
In her May 7th introduction following her employment as the new Economic Development Director for Lakewood, Ellie Chambers-Grady stated (and note the emphasis), “Economic development should be of benefit and value to the community; community development should reflect quality of life; business retention, expansion and recruitment should reflect community values – what as a community we want to be known for – what is important to the people that live there.”
Mr. Anderson’s attacks on the city of Lakewood are getting very old. An inordinate amount of Lakewood’s tax dollars have gone to Tillicum. And I certainly see no animosity toward Tillicum by the Council: on the contrary, they have shown a lot of care toward improving that area of the city. Because a decision is not to Mr. Anderson’s liking does not mean that Mr. Neiditz and the Council are uncaring autocrats. It means that the decision did not go Mr. Anderson’s way. Another alternative: begin the process to make Tillicum a city. But I think that would hurt the area more than anything.
A Kudo to Mr. Neiditz for coming right out in his recent article and stating that; “A major challenge in today’s world is building trust in government. I believe that citizens, who are the stakeholders on public services and public policy issues, want and expect their local government administrators to have positive and professional working relationships with their local government colleagues, in order to achieve efficiencies and productive results in the delivery of programs and services”. Applause!!!!! If you look back at the Lakewood City Plan for Tillicum, there are versus of the same included. The Plan further states that the stakeholders, that being us citizens, must work with government to make things better in our own communities. (Please read the City Plan for Tillicum for the specific wording)
Now, I suggest just a little bit of word smithing to Mr. Neiditz great article is in order. Remove the word “world” and add the word “Lakewood”. In fact, I really do think that for the reader, it would not be a bad idea to add the word “Lakewood, WA” to wherever you want to inject it. I think that this would bring more meaning to Mr. Neiditz great statement and really bring it home with gusto. Kind of like reading a fortune cookie and adding words to it.
Andrew, thanks for your thoughts to our community and rallying us to work with city government on most issues. Since this is your plan and intent, and I suppose along with the Mayor and City Council, I am encouraged with the fact that we, the stakeholders, will be able to discuss issues pertaining to our community timely and not after the fact. To take it one step further, I suggest that Lakewood, Tillicum and Woodbrook meet in a government/stakeholder summit monthly aside from the Tillicum Woodbrook regular meeting. Maybe you can add Camp Murray to our summit since they will become annexed into the city shortly.
Thank you for the positive move on your part and the Government of Lakewood for which you represent.
The basic problem we face with Lakewood’s government specifically and government in general is their assertion that citizens are “customers” and treated as such. We are not customers: we are owner-clients of government. There is a fundamental difference between these relationships. In a “customer” relationship the service provider represents itself, not represent the customer. Ownership is not vested in the customer: its vested in the service provider. Additionally the service provider may attempt to charge as much as they think they can get away with or what the market will bear: this is especially true in a monopoly which is what government is.
Compare this with the owner-client relationship. The service provider must represent the owner-client interests; the service provider is “owned” (contractually or otherwise) by the owner-client; and the services provided are at the direction of the owner-client. In a “customer” relationship the service provider calls the shots; in an owner-client relationship the owner-client calls the shots.
These relationships were at the center of major changes nationally and in real estate market in the 1990’s regarding “agency”; the relationship between real estate professionals and their “customers” and “clients”. Prior to these changes, the “client” was the individual who owned the property and contractually obligated the agent to represent them. The real estate agent was hired by them, worked for them and represented them in the transaction. The buyers were considered only as “customers” and even their agents were not really their agents because they too represented the seller’s interests only.
Buyers as customers had no representation, had no ownership in either the property or contractual obligation of the agent and were taken for as much as the seller and their agents thought they could get from them. Sound familiar? It is too often the same relationship between government and its “customers” who should rather be its” owner-clients”. Indeed isn’t that why we have elections….to contractually obligate elected officials to represent us and service our needs instead of those of government?