Several people have approached me wondering about what took place on July 15 at the Media Borough Council meeting. In response:
1. What happened? Two republicans (Jim Cunningham and Pete Alyanakian) and two democrats (Dawn Roe and Monika Rehoric) voted to oust sitting Council Chair Peter Williamson and Vice-chair Monica Simpson. Next, they voted in Pete Alyanakian and Monika Rehoric as Chair and Vice-chair respectively.
2. How can this occur? The Chair and Vice-chair are typically voted in by Council members immediately following an election. Voting is by simple majority and ties are broken by the mayor. To maintain stability and allow the work of council to reach fruition, this usually only occurs once every two years. It is extremely rare for a vote to called between elections. Although the rules allow members to elect a chair and vice chair at any time, circumstances should warrant such a change.
3. Did the circumstance warrant such a change? In my opinion, no. Six months is barely enough time to set goals and establish working relationships with Borough staff, committee members, and community groups. Changing leaders and committee assignments within months of an election is a bad idea in both the public and private sectors. Organizations spend billions of dollars on succession planning and leadership development for this reason. It is a waste of time, energy, and taxpayer money.
4. What did I know? I was not informed prior to the meeting that there would be a change in leadership. I was never contacted by the group that voted itself into office regarding the changes. As of this writing, I have not been contacted by Cunningham, Rehoric, or Roe regarding the vote, their goals or rationale. I have exchanged a few emails with Pete Alyanakian regarding my retention as the liaison to the MBA so as to not waste time and taxpayer money, a proposal to which he has agreed.
5. How would I have voted? I was not present at the meeting for personal reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted “no” to the change in leadership. I did not receive email to comment from the press until after the story was written.
6. What do I think of the process by which the change was made? I find it troubling. Three members of council had no idea of the impending changes (Williamson, Simpson, and myself). The group of four that voted for the change (Roe, Rehoric, Cunningham, Alyanakian ) did so without any input from the rest of Council or the public. This way of making decisions undermines the spirit and letter of the PA Sunshine laws. The Sunshine Laws state that if a quorum of members (e.g., four) meets electronically or face to face to make decisions or enact legislation, it must inform the public. This principle was clearly violated and should be investigated.
7. What do we call this new group? It is a cabal. A cabal is a group that meets in secret to further the aims of the group. It is not a bi-partisan coalition as suggested for several reasons. In a two party system, a bi-partisan group is one in which Democratic and Republican parties agree to a course of action or principle. Ms. Roe and Ms. Rehoric are individuals, not parties, and do not represent the views of the Democratic party on Council since three democrats on Council were not included in the deliberations, nor do they represent the views of the Democratic party in Media. Therefore, this was not a bi-partisan effort. It is simply a coalition formed secretly to make decisions; i.e., a cabal.
8. How important is trust? Trust is a cornerstone of an effective organization, which is supported by numerous business studies. How you effect change is as important as the outcome. Trust took a serious hit in this case.
9. What did I think of Peter Williamson as Chair? In the six months I have served, I can honestly say that Mr. Williamson was thorough, approachable, fair, well-prepared, and earnest in serving the needs of the Media community. He consistently went out of his way to give voice to members of both parties, which is documented numerous times on tape at legislative and workshop meetings. He favored high levels of participation over making rash, simplistic decisions. He ran meetings appropriately and effectively. On a one-on-one basis, he listened even if he disagreed and apologized if he over-stepped boundaries. In short, he was good colleague.
10. What do I think of the reasons given for the leadership change? Not credible. I have been told that Democrats Rehoric and Roe voted for the change because “meetings took too long and were inefficient.” I disagree. Some meetings were long because there are many thorny and complex issues facing Media. In many cases, members of Council, democrats (including the ones mentioned above) and republicans alike, side-tracked the group on peripheral issues or simply put up obstacles. Participation takes time but is the hallmark of the democratic process. In the end, participation favors quality decision making according to hundreds of studies in the management literature. Mr. Williamson honored that process. Of all the meetings I attended in 2010, Roe and Rehoric never requested changes to the way meetings were run, committee assignments, or petitioned for a reformulation of goals.
In his prepared remarks, Mr. Alyanakian suggested that a change was needed because projects were not being completed. One example given was the sale of the 1 West State Street property formerly rented by Brodeur. This was a topic of considerable discussion and one that led to several split votes. Interestingly, the newly self-elected group is partly responsible for lack of progress on the project. I proposed in workshop to hire professionals to manage the process. The new cabal voted that proposal down and we are still left with a vacancy in the building.
In short, the reasons provided for the change are not consistent with the behaviors I have observed on Council for the past 6 months. The only obvious changes that were made was that new voting block took over governing positions on council and re-formulated committee assignments to suit its needs.
11. What are the next steps? The people of Media should make clear their views on both the process by which the change was enacted and the outcomes. Attend Council meetings, which occur the first (workshop) and third Thursday (legislative) of the month. Email your Council members with your views and concerns (emails addresses are listed at Mediaborough.com). Attend committee meetings that support topics that you are passionate about since these are all public meetings. It is your government. Make your voices known.
12. Why am I on Council? I was brought up with the notion that at some point in your life you give back to the community. I have been fortunate to work as a professor of Management Science and Information Systems at Penn State University. I have taught entrepreneurship, creativity, information systems, leadership, and decision making and am published in many top academic journals. I thought it was time to give back because I love Media, its people and quality of life here. I am new to politics and am not beholden to any party or group. My affiliation as a democrat is that I feel the party comes closest to my ideals and goals, but in the end, I am most swayed by the quality of a person’s ideas. The party has never pressured me to think in a certain way. I vote my values and what I believe is in the best interests of the borough. My goals are to ensure a safe, attractive, and active community that boasts a solid business base, is progressive on waste management, energy use, community design, and exercises sound fiscal policy. I believe in openness and transparency in government. The manner in which this leadership change took place is of deep concern to me and I will work to restore a climate of trust and fairness to the Council.