Guest post from Lenore Herskovitz On December 5, the Council was scheduled to go into executive session for the purpose of discussing personnel matters pertaining to re-incentivizing City Manager,  Kathy Hodgson’s employment agreement. Unfortunately, before the meeting was to begin no written materials about the topic were provided by Mayor Adam Paul or Mayor Pro tem Sharon Vincent. As a result, Councilors Able, Springsteen, Olver and Janssen voted against going into executive session. The discussion regarding Ms. Hodgson’s contract was rescheduled for a public meeting on December 19. The Mayor did not seem pleased about this change in plans but did not acknowledge any personal responsibility in causing the delay. The Mayor referenced the canceled executive session several times on the 19th, placing full blame on the four Councilors. As the special meeting progressed, the Mayor repeatedly interrupted or muted Councilors Able, Springsteen and Olver. Councilors Mayott-Guerrero and Shahrezaei praised the City Manager without mentioning any of her specific accomplishments. They both stated that they supported the contract. When Councilor Olver offered an opposing view, he was interrupted by the Mayor who continued to talk over him for the remainder of his comment. The Mayor stated that personnel matters were meant to be held in private to avoid personal liability issues resulting from making negative comments in public. It was perfectly acceptable for the two councilors to make positive comments about Ms. Hodgson to explain their support of the contract, but the councilor who opposed it had his explanation suppressed. Mayor Paul often justifies his muting of oppositional positions by claiming he is trying to maintain decorum. In reality, he appears to be silencing the councilors who challenge his views. It should be noted that a man named Eric Brandt (presently incarcerated for attempted retaliation against a judge) would participate in the public comment portion of council meetings by spewing profanities for his 3 minutes. The Mayor never interrupted him, presumably fearing a potential lawsuit for violating First Amendment rights to freedom of expression. Shouldn’t our city councilors be afforded the same rights? The Mayor’s definition of decorum appears synonymous with compliance: not making waves, not questioning staff, and being a team player. When challenged, Mayor Paul responds defensively by chastising, humiliating, demeaning or simply placing the individual on mute. As the meeting on the 19th was drawing to a close, the Mayor called for a vote on the contract issues while Councilors Janssen and Olver had their hands raised to speak. The Mayor ignored them and proceeded with the vote which was 7 to 4 in favor of the contract. Ignoring raised hands and muting speakers is a lack of decorum more serious than opposing views spoken in moderate tones. It is time for free speech to reign so our councilors can do their jobs without fear of retribution and effectively represent their constituents’ interests

On December 19, there was a special meeting for the sole purpose of discussing a resolution to amend the City Manager’s Employment Agreement. At issue is re-incentivizing the contract, which was first discussed in executive session in May 2022. Kathy Hodgson has been the city manager for 13 years. City survey data from before her start and now is an easy way to see how we the people view the city and thus our city manager. From the executive summary, the city survey reports that “Lakewood residents enjoy a good quality of life” and “concerns about safety have increased over time.” Looking closer, we see those statements are true; 84% of survey respondents rated Lakewood good to very good in “overall quality of life”. In that respect, the City Manager could be said to be doing a good to very good job. Unremarked upon was the fact that the statistic down from 90% in 2008. In fact, most categories dealing with quality of life in Lakewood are down. In fact, only one goes up, and that’s not for the city, it’s quality of neighborhoods. So from most standpoints, quality of life in Lakewood is going down. There is data on the quality of city services going back to 2013. At that time, 65% of respondents rated the services as good or pretty good. In 2022, that was down to 50%. That is a 15% drop in overall satisfaction. From this brief data capture, we can see that the city survey shows declining satisfaction with Lakewood, and thus with the city manager. We also see that the survey emphasizes the “good” rating more than the declining amount of those ratings. Pointing out favorable statistics is part of the nature of statistics. In this case, it may be part of a policy trend to focus on what the manager wants, rather than what residents are asking for. For example, crime and safety were the #1 issue of concern for survey respondents but city council spends much more time on the #3 issue – affordable housing. Lakewood residents cannot see the material reasons City Council is considering a new incentive plan for the City Manager. A bonus was already awarded this year in August.

Guest post from Lenore Herskovitz In the August 2022 edition of Looking @ Lakewood Mayor Adam Paul commented on public input stating:” We offer many opportunities for you to engage and make your voice heard. Your participation, feedback, and ideas are critical”. While the opportunities may exist for volunteering or submitting information either in person or through Lakewoodspeaks, etc. the results of these efforts are usually ignored. In June 2017, as the citizens’ initiative regarding strategic growth was becoming a reality, our city manager began an all out campaign to try to prevent it from moving forward. Emails obtained through CORA indicate that she directed staff to craft talking points against the initiative. She also worked with the Mayor on adhering to scripted messaging. Keep in mind, this initiative began because the people were concerned about the direction the City was taking regarding growth. For two years, lawsuits prevented the issue from going to the ballot box. Over $300,000 was raised to fight the citizen’s initiative, but the voters spoke at the polls in July 2019 passing the SGI. Our city officials who proclaim they value public input, have spent the past few years doing everything in their power to circumvent that voter approved initiative. If public participation is so highly valued, why disband effective interactive programs such as the development dialogues. These meetings successfully addressed and offered solutions to various problems including housing, parking, etc. They provided a setting that allowed community members to interact with city staff and councilors. Questions were raised and responded to in the moment. I suspect that most of the councilors who voted to end these productive meetings had never attended one. Now the Housing Policy Commission will take on these challenges. This group has spent the past few years working on a short-term rental policy with no definitive results to date. Neither transparency nor public attendance was a priority when scheduling the Annual Planning Retreat last February. It was the only meeting since the beginning of the pandemic that was designated as an “in-person only” event. All other meetings both before and after this offered “virtual” or “hybrid” options. This very important meeting that set City Council priorities for the rest of the year didn’t even offer an “audio” recorded component. I was one of four members of the public who attended. When one observer went to get a cup of coffee from the refreshment table, the Deputy City Manager informed her she couldn’t have any because it was for participants only. Not exactly a welcoming message. When our city officials encourage citizen input, it makes a lovely sound bite but nothing more. If you have ever addressed City Council either in person or by phone you recognize it as a frustrating experience. There is rarely any feedback for your efforts and you often wonder if anyone is paying attention. Prior to council meetings, all our representatives are supposed to read comments on Lakewoodspeaks but it is unusual for that to occur. The council is supposed to be a non-partisan body, but too often that is not the reality. Those council members who are independent thinkers are encouraged to be “team players” and not make waves. The Mayor consistently speaks of “decorum” yet he often fails to follow these guidelines regarding his own behavior. Changes need to be made. For the people’s voices to be heard, we need to demand that our elected representatives be strong and stand up for their constituents’ priorities rather than allow the staff led by the city manager to direct policy. It can be done. Just this past week, the City Council voted unanimously to deny a “blight” designation defying the staff recommendation. This does provide a glimmer of hope moving forward.