The following proposal will be pitched to the city commission Monday night.
Proposal for a Neighborhood Ombudsman in Traverse City
Function of an Ombudsman
An ombudsman is a person within an organization whose job is to advocate for the organization’s constituents. The word ombudsman is a Swedish word meaning, “representative of the people.” Many state and local governments have ombudsmen, and many of the most enlightened and progressive companies have them. That is especially true of companies whose success depends on their relationship with the public.
An ombudsman in city government advocates for the needs and concerns of city residents, solves problems, and investigates and resolves residents’ complaints. An ombudsman can improve the relationship between the residents and the city because the residents have someone inside the government whose role is to champion their interests.
City commission members can and will do this to some extent, and frankly it is the most well-received thing we do. However, there are limitations in the city charter as to how we interact with employees, and our status as policy-makers does not position us to be the most effective or helpful advocates within the organization.
The Ombudsman Idea in Traverse City
The Residential Retention Task Force called for the creation of a neighborhood ombudsman 20 years ago:
City staff members were extremely helpful and responsive in providing information to the Task Force, and their dedication is greatly appreciated. It is recommended, however, that local residents would benefit from the creation of a neighborhood ombudsman or community affairs contact person, perhaps as a revised responsibility of an existing staff person. Such an individual would function primarily as a source of information, referral, and follow-up for citizen issues and inquiries.
The past two years we had a part-time Community Development office. The CDO focused on things like film, industrial abatements, brownfield projects, and corridors. The ombudsman would be an advocate for city resident matters in the way the CDO focused on commercial matters. Creation of an ombudsman does not foreclose the commission from revisiting the CDO in the future – the two jobs fulfill different functions.
Matters that would have, or still could, benefit from an ombudsman include:
-
neighborhood signs,
-
street parking in the Boardman neighborhood,
-
railroad cars taking up residence at Lake Ridge,
-
traffic management and park development in Old Town,
-
the Traverse Heights neighborhood watch proposal,
-
the Slab Town effort to restore some beach space at the end of Elmwood Avenue,
-
advancing projects under the new traffic calming program,
-
walkable winter school routes,
-
Orchard Heights’ effort to improve Clancy Park,
-
concerns about the Tabu Lounge,
-
problem rentals in various neighborhoods.
Types of Ombudsmen
There is a U.S. Ombudsman Association that has a lot of research available on how ombudsmen work. Their website is http://www.usombudsman.org/. They recommend periodic reporting by the ombudsman to the legislative body (the city commission). This makes the commission aware of residents’ concerns, what is being done to address them, and provides the opportunity to ask questions.
There are two basic types of ombudman: legislative and executive. According to Michael Mills, Ombudsman of the City of Portland, Oregon, the executive ombudsman works for the government’s chief executive officer. While an executive ombudsman can operate in an independent manner, Mills writes that the public tends not to view the official as independent. The materials one can read on ombudsmen all suggest that independence and impartiality is a crucial feature of an ombudsman.
The legislative ombudsman acts on behalf of the legislative body, and is independent of the rest of the administrative organization. Mills states that the ombudsman must also not be overly controlled by the legislative body, again to provide for a measure of independence and impartiality.
Options for the Commission
In consulting with the City Attorney, there would seem to be three potential ways in which an ombudsman could be created in Traverse City:
(1) A new position within the administrative staff who is appointed by and works for the City Manager. This would be an executive ombudsman.
(2) A position created by the city charter by a vote of the people that is appointed by the City Commission. This would be a legislative ombudsman. Because it would be embedded in the charter, and approved by a vote of the people, this would be a strong version of the legislative ombudsman.
(3) A contract person hired by the City Commission to assist the commission in the carrying out of its duties. A similar process was envisioned for the management audit proposed as part of COFAC, but that never went forward. This would be a weaker version of the legislative ombudsman because it would not have the mandate of a vote of the people, and because it could be dropped by the commission at any time.
Karrie has suggested model language for the charter amendment:
The City Commission may appoint a City Ombudsman for a term determined by the City Commission who shall hold office at the pleasure of the City Commission. The City Ombudsman shall investigate complaints brought against City officers and employees and shall provide advocacy for residents of the City in their dealings with the City. Findings or recommendations of the City Ombudsman with respect to employees in the administrative service shall be dealt with by the City Manager pursuant to the City Manager’s authority under this Charter. Notwithstanding any provision in the Charter to the contrary, the City Ombudsman shall receive such salary or compensation as may be fixed by the City Commission.
I generally like this language, with three minor suggestions:
(1) Call it a neighborhood ombudsman. That was what the residential retention task force called it, and it sounds more accessible.
(2) Emphasize the resident advocate role over the investigation of complaints. The resident advocate role would be the primary job and the main reason for doing this.
(3) Be clear that any complaints that would be investigated would be those brought by city residents. The job is to serve residents.
Funding
Karrie’s language makes clear that funding of the position is at the discretion of the City Commission. That is important because it would give the commission options such as part-time or contract.
Funding would need to be found. A possible source could be if we began to contract or re-set the base of the DDA as part of our TIF evaluation, a portion of those funds could be used for this position. Another option is if real estate values begin bouncing back in the city, a portion of the revenue could be allocated to this position.
Other Cities
A casual search reveals ombudsmen both in large and small cities. Examples of large cities include:
-
Portland, OR
-
Minneapolis, MN
-
Boise, ID
-
Anchorage, AK
-
Toronto, ON, Canada
Examples of medium size cities include:
-
Charleston, SC
-
Vancouver, WA
-
Provo, UT
-
Hampton, VA
Examples of small cities include:
-
Harrisburg,PA
-
Covington, KY
-
Davis, CA
-
Bisbee, AZ
Editorial Comment
In the last five years, I have noted that certain sectors have advocates within city government, or representatives who engage city government on a regular basis. These include developers, unions, industrial companies, and some non-profit organizations.
There is nothing wrong with these entities having advocates in the government or being regularly engaged with it. But it does mean that a lot of time, attention, and resources get focused on their needs. That is not insidious, but it should not be surprising, either.
An organization with 150 employees and almost 15,000 “owners” ought to have at least a part-time person dedicated solely to shareholder relations. Saying that owner relations is the job of every staff member is not really a good answer, because when everyone is responsible for doing a job, no one person has to answer for its success or failure. Everyone is responsible, and that would continue to be the case – but one person would be the focal point for delivering results.
The neighborhood ombudsman could fulfill this role in Traverse City. He or she could relieve some of this burden from other staff, could help coordinate responses to neighborhood needs in much the way the CDO did for commercial sectors, and could provide city residents with the go-to person in city government they have asked for.
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 22, 2011 at 4:28 pm
Katie
Chris, with all due respect, I don’t think this is an idea ready to ‘pitch’ to anybody right now. There are way more problems with a higher priority for money and attention than this (anyone can list them–from bayfront to pension funding with fire & police and traffic/streets in between). This role is, perhaps, a ‘nice to have’ feel-good sort of thing rather than a huge necessity. The fact that reference is made only to a 20-year old task force idea, rather than some groundswell of input right now in 2011, ought to speak for something–this is not high on anybody’s list! At the very least, you should be sensitive to terms. As suggested by the City Attorney, call it a proposal for a ‘City Ombudsman’ or a ‘Citizen Ombudsman’. This is much more inclusive and positive for everyone in this great City. As suggested by the citizen-June above, not everyone in TC even lives in a defined neighborhood, or in an area with an active neighborhood association. Not everyone represented by a neighborhood association agrees with what the neighborhood association leaders may be advocating. We should think of TC as a WHOLE. As a corresponding point — the Division Street recommendation includes the idea of changing the name of ‘Division Street’ to something more inclusive for all. The same logic should work here. Let’s quit forcing so much thought to the neighborhood mindset, which does inherently have a strong element of divisiveness. So, just cut to the chase and call it a ‘Citizen Ombudsman’. If it is indeed a position to serve all residents, then fine, say so in the title and be direct in making everyone feel welcome. It’s not really pertinent what a Task Force 20 years ago wanted to call it — what do we want to call it, what do we want it to DO, today and in the future? (assuming we do it at all).
Thus, I do not support this idea at a conceptual level. If further, robust discussion at the City Commission level, however, does indeed move it forward, then I think the only realistic way to implement it is option #3 (a contract person as suggested by COFAC–you know, maybe 3 years ago, not 20). This gives the ability to test the whole concept without longterm commitment. I think it would be foolhardy to go with anything else until it is something that has proven to be effective both philosophically and in practice.
July 22, 2011 at 5:10 pm
chrisbzdok
Kay, just to be clear: I’m proposing this idea because – after five years of daily involvement in city government – I believe it is needed and would benefit our residents, for the reasons stated in the post. I attribute the idea to the residential task force because that is who originated it. I’m so convinced of its importance I’m willing to devote my last four months to getting it done.
I don’t see it as having anything to do with distinctions between neighborhoods that have associations and those that don’t. The goal is to benefit city residents in any kind of neighborhood – organized, unorganized, platted, condominium, or building. There is nothing in my proposal that elevates the needs of one set of residents over another – the point is to elevate the needs of residents in the attention of city government relative to other priorities. best wishes, Chris
July 22, 2011 at 9:00 am
June Thaden
Without having read the background info, I think this is an interesting idea — if that person interacts with individual citizens as well as with the neighborhood associations. I live in an area of town that does not have an association and I have felt many times that the groups influence undue attention to one portion of the Traverse City. And our problems will be solved when the entire city is considered as a whole. What happens on one street affects the whole town, not just that immediate neighborhood.
July 22, 2011 at 9:04 am
chrisbzdok
June, I completely agree – the job would need to be set up to work for the residents, in whatever neighborhood they live. It could even help non-organized neighborhoods by giving them a vehicle through which to advance projects and address issues. Thank you for writing, Chris