If you’ve followed this blog you know that I am a consistent advocate for transparency in government leadership, and the topic was raised a number of times during last year’s election season.  I appreciate the paper bringing focus to this issue, and look forward to the conversations that result.

Here’s the full text of my editorial submitted for today’s edition:

Most people don’t like to have their judgment questioned or their mis-steps revealed, less so in front of other people. It’s human nature to want to be well regarded and to avoid embarrassment. So we can empathize with elected officials and other community leaders who don’t like the “burning sensation” that can come when their decisions or deliberations are exposed to the bright light of the public view.

But does the potential sting of that exposure mean we should shy away from the pursuit of transparency in those matters? Or do the potential dangers of power abused for personal gain, fraudulent use of taxpayer resources or other wrongs trump the temporary personal discomfort of those who have asked to be representatives of each of us in matters that affect all of us?

Maybe we can’t imagine a modern “Watergate” happening at the local or state level, and we know that most public servants are trying to do the right thing most of the time. But we also know that regardless of political party affiliation or the best of intentions, human beings are complex and historically subject to the temptations of influence and authority. We also know that in difficult economic times, there is no room for even the trivial mis-use of tax dollars.

So let our community leaders strive not just to meet the basic legal requirements of disclosure and transparency, but to proactively offer the documents, reports, data and on-the-record conversations that will make members of the public their collaborators in government efficiency, instead of their adversaries in a struggle for power and information. Let those who have volunteered to be stewards of our hard-earned dollars be completely accountable to our questions, our concerns, our challenges to their judgment…even when it’s uncomfortable, and even when it might lead to embarrassment. And when an elected official struggles with the burdens of disclosure or the challenges of transparency, let the rest of us affirm with our words and our votes that we will always reward those who favor sunshine over secrecy.

1. Build stuff people want, offer products and services people want to buy
2. Attract and retain quality talent
3. Raise capital to get fledgling ideas to the point of sustainability, create a density of “investors”
4. Create a world class culture that encourages people to stick around even when times get tough

These may not be comprehensive factors, but they could be useful metrics to view your city with.

If I had to rate my own city of Richmond, Indiana, I’d say we have plenty of room to grow in each area:

1. We have a lot of great infrastructure and a variety of desirable products/services but we’re pretty scattered on how to sell them in the global marketplace
2. We think we know a lot about what kind of talent we’re looking for, but there’s often a disconnect between that knowledge and our level of investment in actual attraction efforts
3. We don’t always make efficient use of the limited capital that’s available to us, but we have a lot of generous and heavily invested people living here
4. We’re often short-sighted when it comes to building an attractive culture, but there are pockets of people who see the big picture and are working for change

How does your city do when you look at it as a start-up company?

Perhaps the most striking point for me in Bischke’s piece is the question of leadership.  He says we need more than just strong or experienced leaders, we need people who can think like entrepreneurs:

As we roll into an election year, many cities are in a state of crisis. Budgets are a mess and job growth has been minimal for a good swath of the country. Cities in need don’t just need strong leadership, they require transformational leadership. It’s no easy feat but it’s likely that the more that mayors view their cities through an entrepreneurial lens, the better they will be able to adapt to a rapidly-changing world.

Almost any city across the country could adopt the slogan “Adapt or Die” and it wouldn’t be an understatement of the predicament they’re in and the approach needed to get out of it.  Many traditional businesses are in the same boat.  The businesses/cities that will not only just survive but flourish are the ones willing to use non-traditional methods to make ground-shaking changes in the way they operate.

Of course officials who are elected and empowered by government to take action are often central to many kinds of community progress.  But it certainly doesn’t mean that getting elected is the only way to be a leader in your community.

So, I offer this list of Five Ways to be a Leader in Your Community Without Running for Office:

1. Volunteer your time. Find an organization or a project in your community that meets a need or tackles an issue that’s interesting to you.  This may seem like an obvious one, but giving of your time not only provides tangible assistance to your community, but it helps you connect with others who are working on making it a better place.  From these experiences you can see what other parts of the community need your attention and how you can best serve.
2. Participate in public debate and feedback.  When you’re asked by organizations or other leaders in the community for your input, or if someone is doing a survey or conducting focus groups, participate!  It can be tempting to think your individual response won’t make that much difference, but a well-thought out comment or an observation or question shared from the heart can often make ALL the difference.  School boards, government agencies and community improvement organizations can wander around in the dark for a long time without regular feedback from the people they serve or represent.  If you have the chance to help guide them, do it, and encourage your friends and family to participate too.
3. Find an unmet need and lead the way to meeting it.  In many communities there are often basic services, programs or bits of infrastructure that aren’t in place but could be.  Look for those times in the course of your daily routine when you think “Somebody should…” or “I wish they’d…” and then become the person who moves that thing forward.  You don’t have to be an expert or a full time advocate to help get a process unstuck or bring something to the attention of appropriate decision-makers.  And it doesn’t have to be a big project or an expensive solution to make a difference.
4. Ask for accountability. Make sure you understand the job descriptions for your elected officials at the local and state level, and then make sure they’re actually living up to that job description.  If they’re doing a good job, tell them that and encourage them – it’s not easy being a politician and you can never make everybody happy, so affirmation goes a long way.  If they’re not doing a good job, tell them that in constructive ways – letters that suggest alternate approaches, showing up at meetings where you share your perspective, and so on.  Let your representatives know that you’re watching and that you care.  In the end, most of them will serve the community a little bit better because of it.
5. Develop your network.  Build relationships with others around you – neighbors, co-workers, friends, strangers – and look for opportunities for people to work together or share resources to achieve a common goal.  Even if you don’t have an active project or effort right now, knowing who to call or connect with when an opportunity arises will help make things happen more quickly.

These suggestions may be obvious, and practicing these kinds of leadership may not yield the same kinds of recognition or public exposure that elected officials receive (this can be a good thing), but every successful community depends on its members to take some active role in making it a better place.

What other ways do you work at being a community leader?

But we can’t let the shared pastime of grumbling about the machinations of politics and the wearing complexity of government trick us into forgetting that, right now, for the future of our city, this is the election that matters.

Why?

As I campaigned during the primary season and met with concerned voters, business owners and community leaders, and as I’ve observed the economic, social and cultural forces at work in our area, I’ve come to see that the next four years are going to be a critical time in the history of Richmond, Indiana:

• We’re having basic conversations now about “what are the essential functions of a city government?” that will affect policy, legislation and quality of life for decades to come.  The decisions we make now about what government should do for us, and what it shouldn’t do, will determine the path that Richmond takes when it comes to economic development, upkeep of infrastructure, and caring for the needs of all citizens who live and work here.  And when we decide now that something is or isn’t a part of what we want the City of Richmond to do for us, it will be much more difficult to change that decision later.
• Richmond faces unprecedented challenges in unprecedented economic times.  Things we’ve taken for granted in the past about the way job creation, governance, energy costs and community building (and how you fund those) are changing right under our feet, and the way we react to those changes could make all the difference between barely surviving and thriving as a city.
• Citizens are looking for new models of leadership and collaboration at all levels of government.   The frustration with national, state and sometimes even local leaders is palpable – voters are tired of broken promises, wasteful spending, political bickering and unwieldy government agencies that, in the end, don’t work for the people.  The people we elect to serve in City government now will determine whether Richmond sets its own course and actually works to serve the people who live here, or whether we slip back into business as usual.

Of course, these factors are just the beginning.  Every time the Mayor’s office decides how to spend the time and resources of City employees, every time the City Council meets to discuss a proposed tax abatement or new ordinance, or to set the budget for the coming year, we will be making decisions that ripple throughout the community and into its future.  Richmond is not a fragile town, but it is a place that needs those ripples to be of energy, creativity, and new perspective, not “wait and see” or “that’s not politically expedient” or “here’s how we’ve always done it, there is no alternative.”

I’m running for City Council because I think I can be a force for good at a critical juncture in the history of a community I love and call home.

I’m running because I can see no greater calling at this point in my life than to help make Richmond a stronger, more vibrant place to live.

I’m running as one way to celebrate the fact that, at least for now, the voters of Richmond still have the power to set the course for our future, and put into office officials who will honor the hope and trust placed in them.

I’ve written before about things you might consider when leaving a volunteer board of directors for a non-profit or other community organization. I’ve also had some good conversations recently about the process on the other side of that kind of community involvement, deciding whether or not to say “yes” to joining a board of directors or taking on some other leadership role. For your sake and for that of the organization, it’s important to do some research and reflecting before accepting that invitation, to make sure your involvement is a good fit and that the experience will be rewarding for all involved.

From my experience, here’s a list of steps to take and questions to ask when you’re considering whether or not to join a board of directors:

1. What’s the function of the board? Is it purely advisory, or does it make and enforce policy? Is it involved in big-picture strategic planning, or is it managing day-to-day operations? What role does it play in the life of the organization?
2. What’s the time commitment? Some boards meet a few times a year in intensive sessions, but don’t otherwise expect much from their members. Other boards meet monthly, with multiple committee meetings and community events in between that you might be expected to attend or even organize. Some boards have very active e-mail mailing lists, others are quiet. Learn how much of your time and energy – in the form of meetings, events and other communications – you’ll be expected to expend.
3. What’s the leadership structure? Who sets the agenda for the board meetings? What’s the relationship between the board’s executive committee or other leadership and the rest of the members? What’s the relationship between the board and the staff? Are there “covert leaders” who have exceptional but unofficial or unnamed influence?
4. How are decisions made? Do board conversations seek to build consensus, or is discussion about convincing a majority to vote a certain way? When there are concerns or conflicts, how are they resolved? Are stakeholders consulted, or informed after the fact?
5. What’s your anticipated role? Are you being invited to join because you have a specific skill, affiliation or resource that you’ll be expected to use (e.g. you’re a lawyer and they need free legal advice)? Do they already know what committee or project they want you to work on, or will they wait to discern what might be the best fit for you?
6. What’s the new member orientation process? Are new board members formally oriented to the processes and culture of the board, or are they just expected to show up and figure it out? Who does the orienting, and what approach do they use?
7. How is institutional memory preserved? Does the board create and publish thorough meeting minutes? Are past decisions and discussions easily reviewable so that conversations aren’t re-hashed with board member turnover? Are key documents like bylaws, member contact lists, and financial statements made easily available?
8. What’s a meeting like? Ask to sit in on a board meeting as an observer and see how it’s conducted. Are the espoused values and mission of the organization manifested in the way the board members interact with each other? Is member participation even and equitable, or unbalanced and dominated? How does it feel to spend an hour of your time in that setting?
9. Why did other board members say yes, and why are they still there? Talk to other members of the board about their experiences, what they think works well, and what they see as areas for organizational growth. What frustrates them? What projects and successes get them excited?
10. Check your schedule. Even if the answers to all of the above questions point toward a “yes,” look at your existing time commitments and personal aspirations, and ask whether or not you can fully engage in the life of the organization without compromising those. Do you have enough time in the day for a new role?

Are there other things you take into consideration when deciding what good causes and organizations you give your own time to?

In a non-profit organization board meeting, it might be the Executive Committee or the board chair.

In a small business, it might be the business’s owners or managers.

In a city council meeting, it might be the President of the council or the group’s political majority.

In a community of faith, it might be church elders.

Sometimes we forget the power that the agenda setters can have.  We focus on the outcomes of the conversations that we do have, but we forget or overlook that some conversations aren’t conducted in the first place.

Sometimes this is out of practical necessity – a given group of people can only cover so much ground in a given gathering – but sometimes it’s because the agenda setters don’t feel a given conversation should be had.

In the best case, this choice to exclude certain conversations from the agenda happens because the agenda setters are using their collective wisdom and experience to make the best use of the organization’s time and resources.  Sometimes, though, it happens because the agenda setters are afraid of what might come out in the conversation.  A conflict they can’t mediate.  A decision they don’t agree with.  A bringing to light of things that they would be more comfortable keeping out of sight.

Different approaches to agenda setting work well for different kinds of organizations, but it’s always important to remember the power that the agenda setters are imparted.  As an organization evaluates its effectiveness, it might also ask these questions of its agenda setting process:

1. Is it clear who sets the agenda for the conversations we have as an organization?
2. Is it clear what process is followed for suggesting items for organizational conversations?
3. How well do we equitably handle differences of opinion in what the agenda contains?  How do we identify when something is being left out because of pragmatic considerations versus ideological disagreement?
4. Are those who set the agenda representative of the interests and needs of all who are affected by the organization’s decisions?
5. What important conversations does our agenda-setting process seem to systemically exclude from our time together in discussion?

Are there other queries that are useful to consider in creating a structure for agenda-setting?

In the organizations, businesses and relationships that you’re a part of, what kind of power does the agenda setter hold, and how well is that power used?

On one hand, you’ve got the City painting a picture of being left out of the key parts of the relationship the EDC has with its Richmond constituents, having to fork over $730,000 without appropriate representation.

You’ve got a County official noting that the City is as well represented on the EDC board as the County or other entities, and that things are working just fine as they are, while the Chamber president notes that there may be a conversation to be had, but that the current actions being taken are too poorly timed.

What’s going on here?  Everyone seems to be making reasonable statements on the matter that represents the point of view of the entities they serve, but it sounds like they’re having the conversation with each other for the first time on the pages of the newspaper. ARGH!

If indeed the “conversation” was triggered by a City Council resolution refusing to designate its usual fund contribution to the EDC budget, then that seems like a really poor way to start things off. It sets up a battle full of pressure points and high-stakes leveraging, and needlessly sensationalizes the issue. Councilman Phil Quinn noted that they’re trying to “send a statement” – why do that with a public vote, when you could do it in a meeting, e-mail message or even postal mail? I suspect we’d be a lot farther along if there’d been in-person meetings between City, County, and Chamber officials trying to hash this out before going public with it, and while I don’t know firsthand that there wasn’t one, I suspect that they skipped that part.

By the same token, County and Chamber officials should not have responded in kind for a news story, using the media for power plays. When you say things like “it doesn’t make any sense to me,” or “this is extremely untimely” for the press, it’s a kind of public disapproval and shaming, even paternalistic finger-wagging, that can only serve to inflame whatever tensions might already exist. It also makes us look like we’re a community in chaos, which is exactly what economic development efforts don’t need. Instead, officials should have either refrained from commenting in any detail while noting that conversations are ongoing, or at least framed their concerns more positively – “We’re concerned about the timing and the reasoning here, but we’re ready to work with each other to understand everyone’s needs and broker a solution that works best for our citizens.” Would that have been so hard?

Yes, I’m basing all of this unsolicited advice on a single Pal-Item news story, and there may be other pieces of the puzzle not yet reported, but I think the theme here is not a new one for our community.

I’ve discussed the kinds of power struggles that are already built into the structure of our community building organizations, and when you throw in poor (or total lack of) communication on top of that, things are only going to get worse. I think it’s fine for community leaders to act shrewdly in the fulfillment of their vision for a better Richmond and Wayne County, but this cannot involve closing the door to dialog with other stakeholders – early and often.  Too frequently, we hear about one organization or government entity “scratching its head” at the actions of another, and then we throw up our hands and wonder why there’s little public confidence in our prospects for economic revitalization. Let’s connect some dots here, folks.

Mayor Sally Hutton is quoted as saying that “The bottom line is we want to work together…We will work something out.” Let’s hope that, for everyone involved, there’s not only an intention to work together but some actual mechanisms by which that might happen. These community leaders need to get in a room together TODAY, and they shouldn’t leave until they’ve got a joint media statement prepared that lays out a much more positive path forward. Richmond and Wayne County deserve at least that level of collaboration.

Update on 1/6/09: in an article today, the Pal-Item notes that the City Council has approved their contribution to the EDC’s budget, contingent upon a future appointment to the board.  This comes in the form of a 1-year agreement instead of the usual 4-year term.  According to the article, “No time frame was set for the first meeting between representatives of the city and county.”  This also comes on the same day as an announcement about the new EDC President.

But one only has to look at the long list of community building organizations and entities in Richmond – and the overlap, duplication, and even competition that some of them represent for each other – to wonder if maybe this isn’t an area where we’re actually holding ourselves back instead of moving ourselves forward.

Consider, in no particular order:

• City of Richmond (including the Mayor’s office, City Council, various commissions and committees)
• Wayne County Government (commissioners, council, and related entities)
• Richmond-Wayne County Chamber of Commerce
• Main Street Richmond Wayne County
• Richmond/Wayne County Convention and Tourism Bureau
• The Economic Development Corporation
• The Richmond Depot District
• Richmond Art Works
• Wayne County Vision
• Neighborhood Services Clearinghouse
• Institute for Creative Leadership
• Preserve Richmond
• Wayne County Foundation
• WayNet.org
• United Way of Whitewater Valley

All of these organizations, while having some significantly different areas of focus and programming, are essentially working on the same core issue: how to make Richmond and Wayne County a better place to live, work and play.

They approach that question differently, for sure. Some are funded by taxpayer dollars while others seek membership fees and grants. Some have brick and mortar operations with paid staff while others are made up of a few key people who meet when and where they can. But all of them are trying to build up our community.

I wonder, then, if Richmond and Wayne County is benefiting from the work of these organizations as much as it could or should. If you add up all of the budgets and person-hours and fundraising galas and community events and networking gatherings and the like, are we really seeing the results that we should if those same resources were being put to work by a smaller number of organizations, or even one organization? Or is there some fragmentation, or even severe limitation, that comes from having so many proverbial cooks in the proverbial kitchen?

And the above list is just the organizations working on community building at a fairly broad level – if you start to look at organizations working on specific issues like environmental awareness and sustainability, education, youth programs, housing, or providing social services to those in need, you can make whole separate lists with all new kinds of overlap and duplication of efforts, all right here in one little city that doesn’t even have an Indian restaurant!

Sometimes the overlap is just logistical or administrative: everyone having their own calendar of events, for example, that the average citizen doesn’t have a hope of knowing to check when they want to find out what’s happening in town. Sometimes the duplication or perception of duplication is more substantial: every year about this time, small businesses start getting bombarded with letters asking for charitable gifts or membership renewals for the coming year, and they have to decide how best to support their community, hoping their dollars go as far as possible. In turn, the soliciting organizations have to spend their time and resources reiterating the value they bring to the area, just to make sure they aren’t lost in the noise.

This doesn’t seem like the most effective way to operate.

Let me be clear: I’m not suggesting that the work of any one of these organizations isn’t needed or valuable, or that their mission and approach aren’t sound. In fact, I support many of them with my time and dollars, and have been fortunate to call many of their leaders and advisers friends over the years. Some of them do collaborate and enjoy strong partnerships, and many of them can point to significant and lasting successes they’ve had here. Diversity of approach and funding, sometimes with a little duplication, can be essential.

But I also can’t help but indulge in some thought exercises:

What if some of these organizations were better at communicating openly and honestly with each other not only about shared values and goals, but about their concerns, egos and territorial sensitivities?

What if some of these organizations could truly collaborate, share resources, or even merge programs?

What if we didn’t take the impact and relevance of some of these organizations for granted, grilling some on why they’re still a good value, and praising others more for the under-appreciated work they do?

What if we decided that our community needed a new approach?

We are complex enough beings that we can simultaneously understand how our community is hurting in a lot of ways, and also how good we have it and much possibility there is for the future.

Old minds think: “How do we stop these bad things from happening?“

New minds think: “How do we make things the way we want them to be?“

Let’s make sure our community building efforts are actually working to make things the way we want them to be.

As the Palladium-Item notes, the burden of making these important choices should not fall on the folks who have mouths to feed, bills to pay, and very real short-term concerns to address. The responsibility instead falls on those who have the luxury of looking at the long term – the Chamber of Commerce, the Economic Development Corporation, the City and County governments, and the myriad private and public organizations and individuals who participate in the conversation about “what’s best for our community.” These entities should not be scared into pursuing just any opportunity for bringing jobs to town, because this approach will only reinforce the slow and steady erosion of Richmond’s diversity, heritage, and values, even if it does sprinkle some new jobs into the mix for now. Instead, they should discern a larger vision for how they can shape and mold Richmond’s future economic growth to benefit not only the current citizens, but also the generations to come. This means breaking away from our historical approach of “precedent equals justification” and “bottom line jobs created”, and taking some risks in the name of preserving and building on what Richmond was, is, and can be.

This driving vision should not only be reflected in the mission statements of these economic development entities, but also codified in the laws and policies that guide our economic choices as a community. Most of the existing zoning laws and ordinances are focused on specifying what activities are prohibited – chemicals you can’t use, the way properties/buildings can’t look, the land uses that aren’t acceptable, and so on; it would seem that a community intent on providing a better future for its citizens would also specify the activities and business decisions that are desirable, that will be supported and encouraged by the city planners.

To that end, I propose that we should at least carefully consider these kinds of questions about a given opportunity, if not adopt something like them as a formal standard for how we allocate resources and making decisions:

1. Will the new business contribute positively to Richmond’s image and character as a place where you’d want to grow up, live, raise your children, retire, etc.?
2. Will the new business compete with existing businesses in a way that will limit their continued growth and success (especially if the existing business is locally owned and operated and the new one is not)?
3. Will the new business contribute to strong local business districts and the identity of Richmond’s neighborhoods?
4. Will the new business minimize its impact on the harm to physical resources of Richmond’s landscape – re-using existing structures where possible, avoiding environmental degradation, etc?
5. Will the new businesses proactively consider quality of life issues in Richmond, not only of its employees, but also of the neighboring businesses and residents affected by its presence? Will it treat these people with concern and respect for their wants and needs?

Again, those are just rough examples; a more thorough approach like Richmond’s current work to develop a new comprehensive plan would be required to create a complete list of the questions our community needs to ask of potential new members, and how we should measure the responses. One of the hardest parts, of course, will be the public fall-out when we do come to the point of saying “there may be some immediate jobs down that path, but there’s long-term security in this other direction” or even, to a particular potential new employer, “we really don’t want you here.” Those looking for work may cringe and complain that they are being let down, and the politicians whose popularity and re-electability are tied up in public perception of economic choices may question any such approach. For a true positive driving vision to take root, then, a shift in thinking (and the accompanying personal sacrifices and compromises) for all involved will be required.

As I’ve said before, we have the ability, not to mention the duty, to take these important choices seriously. I’m glad the Palladium-Item is at least partly acknowledging that duty and the complexities of taking it on; I hope that the community leaders involved in these efforts — and all of us, really — will stand back and consider the big picture of their role in shaping Richmond’s future, not just the immediate economic impact.