“A tale of two cities,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, May 4 – 10, 2012, 19.

A TALE OF TWO CITIES

Instead of Charles Dickens’ famous novel about Paris and London during the French Revolution, we are talking about Colorado Springs Utilities and the Pikes Peak Regional Building Department, representing two radically different “cities” or mindsets.

Dickens’ opening paragraph still resonates: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness…” Is our city going through “the spring of hope” or “the winter of despair”?

When there is unanimity of public disregard, as is the case with the CEO of CSU (Forte) and its Chairman (Councilman Hente), then no oversight is expected and stonewalling is standard procedure. Perhaps they already concede that CSU will be sold like Memorial, so why bother?

But when there is a difference between the head of RBD (Yankpwski) and its Chair (Brown), when the former responds in person while the latter takes three months to respond by e-mail (after pressure from the other two Commissioners), we can hear quite a bit.

Having taunted RBD’s Commissioners, it’s only fair that a brief summary of their answers should be provided.

Many answers come from the Intergovernmental Agreement that set up RBD in 1966. Once RBD puts it on its website, anyone can read it. It specifies the role of the Commissioners, the composition of their board, and the relationships between the oversight body, the advisory boards, and employment conditions.

Likewise, the organizational charts are in place—they know who does what—but should find their way to the website for public scrutiny.

The budget of $9.5 million (2012) reflects a decrease from $9.8 million (2011) and $11.2 million (2006). Since the budget is entirely composed of fees, and since fees haven’t increased since 2008, staff has been cut from 114 (2008) to 72 (2012).

Other statistical data that may be of interest: in 2011 some 53,000 permits were issued, 63% of them on the website. Around 150,000 inspections were required for these permits with over 80% approved on the first visit; 99% of the inspections are performed the same day they are requested. Pretty impressive!

RBD instituted a call-ahead program where an inspector will call thirty minutes prior to arrival so that the contractor or homeowner can be present. RBD is trying to streamline its operations electronically, from submission to approval, while maintaining a process for appeal with various technical boards. So, why are there still complaints about RBD?

Perhaps the culprits are architects and designers who have been “grand-fathered” when new codes were adopted a few years ago. When developers and owners think they get reliable information about zoning or use-change, they might be mistaken. Better ask RBD officials than rely on some professionals.

It seems that of the three Commissioners, Sharon Brown (Chair), Bernie Herpin (CS Councilman), and Dennis Hisey (County Commissioner), only Hisey takes his oversight job seriously. He recounted in writing his political engagement with state agencies on behalf of RBD.

What is politically at stake here? Why is RBD the “other city” as compared to CSU? While at CSU everyone seems to be asleep, congratulating themselves on lower-than-expected rate hikes for water, for example, RBD is proactive and serious about its mission and responsibilities.

At stake is political leadership that should ensure a climate that is responsive to local needs without shirking public responsibilities, balancing public safety with entrepreneurial efficiency. Developers and remodelers can put pressure on politicians so they perform.

Unlike CSU which raises rates in order to cover an ever-increasing budget—new cars for executives lately?—RBD hasn’t increased fees in four years. Unlike CSU, RBD realizes the impact of the Great Recession and has adjusted its budget.

Unlike CSU, RBD realized that to hustle for new business means spreading its wings outside the region, specializing in school permits and inspections in other counties. Yes, it’s legal; other jurisdictions are puzzled by this competition. This mindset guards against the need to raise fees.

Likewise, some legislation that imposes state electrical and plumbing codes on local jurisdictions ties the hands of RBD’s inspectors. Even when the cases are ridiculous, like requiring a child-proof outlet on the ceiling of garages, the local agency isn’t permitted discretionary application. It has to administer the state code, however bizarre.

Here’s where politics comes into play, and no, it doesn’t require money. Instead, the political leadership of RBD can ask for political help from other local politicians and petition the pro-business Governor who appoints individuals to these state boards so as to allow for greater local maneuvering power.

As long as government agencies hold the power to dictate building codes, the best we can do is direct this power to the local level, where common sense may prevail.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

“Warren Buffett and our Regional Building Dept.,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, March 16 - 22, 2012, 17.

BUFFETT WEIGHS IN ON POLITICS

Warren Buffett is super-rich, one of our American billionaires who is ready to leave the stage. As he’s planning to depart, he has given the Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation the responsibility of disposing of his billions for good causes. Delegating is an art, not a science, and Buffett seems to be masterful at finding expertise where he needs it.

So why weigh in on political issues? Why make headlines about paying a tax rate lower than his secretary? Why go public with what seems to be his private business? Why expose himself in a way that the millionaire Mitt Romney has shunned for months?

Perhaps the master investor has figured out that presidential election are more of a side-show at best, and at worst a way to expose the ugliest of what our country stands for, with mud-slinging and unfounded accusations, appeals to religion rather than the Constitution, and overblown concerns with abortion rather than health care reforms.

Perhaps he’s figured out that presidents come and go, maintaining a status-quo set up by a huge D.C. bureaucracy that runs its own course. Presidents—Republicans and Democrats alike—end up powerless against Congress. There is a reason why Congress’ approval rating is so low that in some polls it’s in single digits: it has become a dysfunctional institution.

So, Buffett sent out a letter offering his “Congressional Reform Act of 2011.” It’s fairly simple, and if implemented could change the course of American politics, bringing it back to the vision of the Founders who believed that representatives should meet for short periods of time annually to legislate. Here’s Buffett’s agenda:

“1. No Tenure/No Pension. A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/12. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term’s, then go home and back to work.”

Straightforward as this seems, no ground-swell support is seen anywhere. We grumble and complain, despise our professional politicians for the special conditions of their employment, health care, and their retirement benefits, but they snub us all, remaining detached from the constituents they are supposed to represent.

Moving from the national level to the local, one wonders why our local millionaires—and there are quite a few of them here—aren’t as outraged as Buffett or as forthcoming with suggestions to reform our local political bastions of power—bureaucracies without supervision. Some do get involved, but not enough.

RBD’s leadership, Sharon Brown, chairwoman of the commissioners and Fountain City Councilwoman, vice chairman Dennis Hisey who is El Paso County Commissioner, and Bernie Herpin who is CS Councilman, has refused to respond to the questions posed in writing on 1/12/12 and published in the CSBJ on 2/17/12.

Obviously RBD is not accountable to anyone. Its organizational chart is still a secret only these commissioners know but refuse to divulge to the public. And here we are, trying to lure businesses to our town, but they won’t be able to refurbish spaces or pull permits because the commissioners won’t let them know who they should approach. Maybe a contractor will whisper the secret to their ears (for a fee), maybe not.

Unlike the RBD, and for that matter MHS and CSU, the Fire Chief decided to put together a task force to find “Business/Broker Solutions for 2012.” Chief Brown and Fire Marshal Lacey are trying to be business-friendly, forward-looking. Two RBD representatives were at the first meeting—nice and conscientious individuals who care about the city but remain politically powerless.

It’s not that RBD employees are not wonderful professionals who want to do the right thing; it’s that their bosses are unresponsive to the public, careless at best and negligent at worst, snubbing the same public these employees are trying to serve.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS who is still waiting to hear back from RBD’s three commissioners. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

“Who’s in charge at the Regional Building Department?,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, February 17 - 23, 2012, 21.

RBD: WHO’S IN CHARGE?

On January 12^th, these questions were e-mailed to Sharon L. Brown, the Chairwoman of the Board of Commissioners of the Pikes Peak Regional Building Department:

“1. What is the role of the RBD's board and why is it constituted in the way it is?

2. What is your role as the chair of that board?

3. What authority do you or your board have regarding policy and personnel (can you fire anyone?)?

4. What is the organizational chart of RBD and where can it be found?

5. What was the 2011 and is 2012 RBD's budget and where can it be found?

6. What specific decisions/goals have you set up for RBD for 2012?

7. What annual review process have you instituted for all RBD's personnel?

8. What complaints have you had to deal with regarding RBD or any of its personnel?

9. How have you changed RBD's culture, if at all, to make it business-friendly?

10. If developers feel treated unfairly in the application of the code or any part thereof, what appeal process is in place to give them a fair hearing or variance?”

None of these questions have been answered as we go to print, even though the Chairwoman asked for them in writing, rather than being interviewed. Now that they are public, would anyone please answer them?

Over the past fifteen years I have been involved in a few downtown developments, some fairly complex. The licensed contractors and sub-contractors, as part of their competitive bids, ensured me that they had a “good relation” with RBD and its inspectors. It’s almost a pre-requisite to be able to complete a project in this town. Should it be?

After the advancement of the European Enlightenment movement in the eighteenth century, nation-states came into being. Part of their success depended on their rule of law and its administration. By the nineteenth century, political philosophers and sociologists wrote about the virtue of bureaucracies. Yes, their virtues!

The main virtue is that the arbitrary rule of a despot or feudal lord was replaced with a bureaucrat who followed the rule of law and administered the duties of the position with fairness. Fairness is defined in terms of treating everyone equally, regardless of wealth or power.

For example, no matter if you are rich or poor, you must stand in line at the Department of Motor Vehicle and wait your turn. You are given the same quick eye exam, the same camera takes your picture, and you receive a driver’s license that is good for the same length of time. You pay the same fee. No, you can’t send your secretary to take care of this task.

Most of us resent bureaucracies for a variety of reasons. They are faceless monoliths whose members exert disproportionate power without being challenged. Paperwork gets lost, responses to inquiries take weeks, and when anything goes wrong, no one is responsible.

Franz Kafka was right. In a series of books, The Penal Colony (1919), The Trial (1925), and The Castle (1926), he dramatized encounters citizens have with bureaucracies. The faceless bureaucrat simply follows orders, as if decisions are always made elsewhere, and no one knows who is ultimately making them. Any reproach is dismissed as paranoia, and any problem is portrayed as the fault of the simple-minded, know-nothing citizen. Rules are being enforced arbitrarily, and no appeal is ever granted. Alone and confused, the citizen has no choice but to cave, grovel, bribe, or commit suicide. As we say: you can’t fight city hall.

So, the fair bureaucracy has become unfair. From equally protecting the rights of citizens, it has become a fearsome force of nature. Can capitalism reverse this transformation? Wealthy media owners have tried to do this for decades, holding the feet of powerful bureaucrats to the fire. But, unless you are Hearst or Murdoch, you don’t have the financial leverage to fight city hall. As dailies close or consolidate, they have become less aggressive in pursuing corruption or callous disregard to the plight of the individual.

Does capitalism have another weapon to fight bureaucracies? Wealthy citizens buy favor with bureaucrats rather than with bureaucracies, as the latest Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) is being played out in super PACS. Millions of dollars buy access to decision-makers: politicians who lead large bureaucracies all of a sudden court the favor of rich people. Would they become more responsive? Would they force their bureaucrats to be friendly and helpful, responsive and flexible? The jury is still out.

One still wonders who runs the RBD, the most important obstacle to any renovation or development in this region. Nothing has changed since the 1920s of Kafka, except that this bureaucracy uses English rather than German. Who is in charge there?  

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com Previous articles can be found at sassower.blogspot.com

“Shouldn’t public servants face questioning?,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, February 3 - 9, 2012, 21.

WHO DO PUBLIC SERVANTS SERVE?

The former chief of police didn’t want to talk to me some months ago, asking that Steve Cox, at the time the mayor’s chief of staff, would be present. I thought this would waste taxpayers’ money, and wrote about the police department’s budget without his input. His e-mails were friendly.

I asked to meet with the chief financial officer of the Fire Department, and when I met Leslie Hickey, Richard Brown (then interim and now Chief) was present, answering any and all questions. Even though the union president, Jeremy Kroto, wasn’t happy with my piece, suggesting that the numbers I got from Hickey and Brown were wrong, he was pleased that there was focus on the CSFD.

The CEO of Colorado Springs Utilities is “not available for an interview” according to David Grossman (1/10/12), one of the corporate communication staff. I asked why he was “unavailable” and about his compensation package and qualification, and received these numbers:

“Mr. Forte's annual salary of $276,750.03 has not changed since 2007. His 2010 short-term incentive was $31,411.13 and his long-term retirement incentive was $39,852.00. His 2011 short-term incentive was $34,455.38 and his long-term retirement incentive was $41,927.63. $50,000 has been budgeted for CEO incentive for 2012.”

I guess someone with a pre-assigned “incentive” doesn’t need to talk to the press or provide a resume. Given his latest shameless stand-off with the mayor about CSU’s line of credit, he is probably ready to retire (and he can definitely afford it).

By the time I contacted the Regional Building Department, the friendly but suspicious chairwoman of the Board of Commissioners, Sharon Brown (Fountain councilwoman) asked for written questions. When I sent her ten questions on 1/12/12, she called back a couple of days later worried about the “purpose” of my inquiry. As we go to print, I’m still waiting for answers to simple questions such as the organizational chart of RBD and its budget. Councilman Herpin who serves on the board has yet to respond to my e-mail of 1/10/12.

Maybe I’m completely off-base for asking public servants to explain how they are fulfilling their mandate. If this line of questioning warrants an apology, please accept mine right here from these pages.

On the other hand, if the CSBJ is to serve the business community, if its charge is to inform the public of anything that relates to business matters, and if the questioning focuses on monopolies (we can’t get electricity elsewhere), then how public officials operate is of paramount interest: who is in charge of licensing and permits; who is enforcing codes and fining businesses; who can we appeal to when bureaucrats play power games?

The fallacy of the digital age is that “it’s all there in the website”, as Councilwoman Jan Martin admonished me when I asked about her maneuvering the Memorial process (which didn’t work out once the public was more involved). If it is, it’s not easily found; if it’s not, as in the case of the RBD, then simply directing an inquirer to the website is Kafkaesque (senseless, disorienting, with menacing complexity).

The danger of the digital age is that in the name of accessibility, the promise of liberalizing or democratizing the community is actually being undermined. It may even serve to control information more tightly, since there are no other modes of communication.

Besides, as every businessperson knows from experience, numbers alone don’t tell much. They need to be contextualized and interpreted. If I have been guilty over the past few months of presenting numbers out of context it’s because their context was not readily explained on websites and power-point presentations, and when officers refuse to explain (either because it’s beneath them or because they don’t know, rather than because they have something to hide), then one must resort to printing numbers and waiting for a response.

We all deserve to know because this is what our Social Contract dictates: agencies levy taxes and fees on us so as to fund regulatory activities (RBD, City administration) or services (fire, police, and utilities). As citizens we implicitly agree to enter a Social Contract with other citizens and use agencies to execute our individual wills (majority rule) in a legitimate way: we self-legislate. This way of thinking goes back to ancient Athens and has been analyzed for two thousand years by political philosophers.

When our agents—civil servants—forget their complicity in the Social Contract perhaps journalists or gadflies, as Socrates liked to describe himself, need to remind them of their role. If they don’t like this, they can resign; it’s that simple.

I realize that writing this column will prevent me from ever doing another project here. It’s a fair price to pay.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS who completed a few downtown renovation projects. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com Previous articles can be found at sassower.blogspot.com

“Mayor Bach is well-equipped, so let him lead,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, January 20 - 26, 2012, 17.

LET THE MAYOR LEAD

I supported the strong mayor initiative and wrote favorably about the Jenkins Proposal that made it happen. I also supported Richard Skorman out of loyalty and a belief that with a new structure in place, experience would count.

I still believe that given our council, a strong mayor is essential, and now believe that Mayor Bach is the right man for the job. His inexperience may be his biggest asset: he doesn’t just go along with what has traditionally been done, and as a one-term mayor, he’s doing what’s right, not what will get him re-elected.

One example the mayor cites is the multi-year budget process: next year’s budget proposal is based on the previous year’s one, rather than on actual revenues and expenditures. This means, for example, that out of a $223M budget, around $5M has been allocated for “authorized positions” at maximum pay even though they are not filled. Why keep this allocation in the budget?

City budget planners could argue that it’s the sensible way of doing business: keep the lines funded even when unoccupied, since they might be filled at some later point. Has the city suffered from these positions remaining unfilled? If unclear, keep them unfilled, and reduce the budget by whatever amount was allocated to them.

What happens if they are needed in the future? Then add them to a revised budget. Having worked on small ($1M/yr) and large budgets ($35/yr), budgets must be periodically revised, given the dynamic nature of organizations: people retire or leave, opportunities materialize, or markets dry out. Though council has to approve the budget annually, and though the mayor has veto rights, it seems that council relishes its ability to over-ride the mayor, as seen recently.

It all looks like the federal farce we are witnessing in Washington, when congress muscles its way to paralysis, leaving a befuddled president powerless. If the intent of council is to show the mayor who’s boss, they should all resign. Perhaps the three incumbents resent the fact that they are not the mayor—they could have run for the position—while the six new ones are as inexperienced as the mayor and still don’t know what role they ought to play.

The mayor claims to have reached out to all of them individually, only to find out that they don’t communicate with each other. The best he could get from them is a rejection of a contingency operating fund of $1.5M which they deemed his “slush fund.” This is a public institution with required transparency. So, it’s not that they don’t trust him, they probably don’t trust themselves.

Unlike them the mayor has offered four initiatives or Solutions Teams: community volunteers in the areas of Parks (Richard Skorman), Transit (Robert Shonkwiler), Streetscapes (Dave Munger), and Downtown (Chuck Murphy). Notice that two chairs were his opponents in the run for mayor. Only councilman Leigh has proposed initiates, and other council members mock him.

Some might be worried that the mayor’s new staff appointments are expensive, especially in this economy. Cindy Aubrey, Chief Communication Officer earns $95,000; her predecessor, Sue Blumberg, made $116,000; her department shrank from 12 to 8 positions. Laura Neumann, who replaced Steve Cox at $182,488, makes $165,000. Steve Cox is making the same salary in his new role as Economic Vitality Chief as before, heading a department with 4 rather than 8 members, while withdrawing $70,000 in subsidy from the EDC.

If these numbers don’t convince you that the mayor is prudent with city expenditures, or that he’s not applying his business acumen to his role as mayor, two other areas may prove the point.

First, he’s drawing on his experience as a commercial real-estate broker to promote the city to local and outside companies. He’s the salesman in chief! And for this role he has trained for forty years, convincing companies to buy buildings and plant their roots here.

Second, he’s trying to make the city business-friendly. What does it mean? I doubt he’ll be able to reduce fees, since our tax base is so low, and fees are essential to maintain an operational infrastructure. But, just talk to the Fire Chief and you’ll hear the mantra of business-friendly. I proposed that the department provide pre-purchase inspection drafts (for a fee) to potential buyers so they’d know in advance what to expect from code enforcement. He promised to consider it. More than can be said about the Regional Building Board (on whose board councilman Bernie Herpin sits), where the mayor has no say.

Perhaps councilmembers should do their jobs as directors of Memorial, Utilities, and RBD and let the mayor run the city. It might be best that council is divesting itself from overseeing Memorial; perhaps council should do the same with CSU and RBD, and let the mayor oversee them, too!

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com Previous articles can be found at sassower.blogspot.com