CC MINS 20080920 ADJ MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL
TEAM BUILDING WORKSHOP
SEPTEMBER 20, 2008
The meeting was called to order at 8:20 A.M. by Mayor Stern at Fred Hesse Community
Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, notice having been given
with affidavit thereto on file.
City Council roll call was answered as follows:
PRESENT: Clark, Gardiner, Long, Wolowicz, and Mayor Stern
ABSENT: None
Also present were City Manager Carolyn Lehr and Deputy City Manager Carolynn
Petru.
Also present was facilitator Dr. Thomas Shanks.
FLAG SALUTE:
The Flag Salute was led by Planning Commissioner Jeffrey Lewis.
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA:
Mayor Pro Tern Clark moved, seconded by Councilman Wolowicz, to approve the
agenda.
Without objection, Mayor Stern so ordered.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
None.
Dr. Tom Shanks requested that Item 1 be considered after the lunch recess, with Item 2
moved up to be the first item of Regular Business.
Without objection, Mayor Stern so ordered.
REGULAR NEW BUSINESS:
Facilitated Council Workshop (Facilitator: Dr. Tom Shanks) (1101)
City Manager Lehr reported that late correspondence was distributed regarding this item
prior to the meeting.
Tom Shanks, Ph.D., Team Building facilitator, introduced the goal of the meeting to be
for the Council to reach a consensus on norms, rules, and procedures to be at their best
in building public trust through more effective and efficient Council meetings. He
reported that the first Team Building meeting focused primarily on the past and on
conflict resolution strategies and Shanks explained that this meeting would table past
difficulties and focus on immediate and long-term ways for Council to do the work of the
people as effectively as possible.
Dr. Shanks reported that he reviewed the previous two months of City Council
meetings, completed two conference calls with senior City staff, held discussions with
the City Manager, and telephone conversations with the individual Council Members, in
order to prepare for the goals of the meeting and to consider suggestions and feedback.
He reported that he also reviewed best practices and core competencies for local City
Councils identified over the past fifteen years as part of the United Nations' Local
Elected Leaders Program.
Dr. Shanks noted, as he did at the start of the first Team Building meeting, that a City
Council is not the "typical team," noting that he and Councilman Gardiner had discussed
this point on the phone. Dr. Shanks asked Councilman Gardiner to share that
discussion point with the Council.
Councilman Gardiner stated that the Council was comprised of five individuals elected
by City constituencies as their representatives; sometimes because of specific positions
the individual has taken, noting that this was not a "team" in the sense of a "sports
team."
Dr. Shanks stated that a typical team has a single coach, complementary skills, and the
same goals, but this was not usually the case with City Councils. He asserted that after
an election, the residents expect that five unique individuals will blend their different
strengths, opinions, goals, and methods well enough to work together to take care of
the people's business effectively and efficiently. He noted that this was the challenge
and topic of discussion for this team-building session.
Dr. Shanks stated that under the City Council-City Manager form of government one
important task was for the Council to become effective partners with the professional
City staff, especially the City Manager and the City Attorney. He reported that based on
his observation and experience, the broader Council/staff team had to establish a
clearer line between policy, which is the role of the Council, and implementation, which
is the role of the staff. He acknowledged that micromanagement by the Council was a
common issue raised by some Council members and staff during the phone
conversations. He noted that finding a "bright dividing line" was made more difficult
because the Council also has fiduciary responsibilities, evaluates the performance of
the City Manager and City Attorney, and monitors policy implementation, among other
things. He stated that the Management Partners report and his own observations
indicate that there was significant work to be done to clarify the line between policy and
City Council Minutes
September 20, 2008
Page 2 of 12
implementation and to strengthen the effective partnership between the Council and
staff. He noted that this topic would be addressed in the last part of the day. Dr.
Shanks stated that only key members of the Council team the Council, the City
Manager, and the City Attorney—were asked to be present at this meeting due to the
stated goals. Dr. Shanks said that the City Attorney was out of town and that the City
Manager would represent all staff. Dr. Shanks noted that he had discussed and
received input regarding key parts of the agenda with the City Attorney prior to this
meeting.
Dr. Shanks provided an overview of the day's activities, discussions, and decision-
points including the following topics:
1. Review of Ground-Rules
2. Report of follow-up from Team Building 1 (March 29, 2008)
3. Late correspondence
4. Exercise: Building public trust
5. Exercise: "What I Bring"
6. Discussion: Making Council Meetings More Effective and Efficient
7. Practicing the New Approach: Consideration of Management Partners Matrix
8. Further Discussion, Decision-Making, and Consensus about Council
Meetings
9. Clarifying Council roles: policy-making and staff relations
10.Next Steps and Conclusion
Dr. Shanks explained that at the end of each step or activity the Council would
determine the next steps and these would be recorded and posted on the wall so that
the Council could track its progress through the day. He noted that one possible next
step had been suggested by Mayor Pro Tem Clark, who suggested that the Council
develop a "meeting report card," where Council Members on a rotating basis would
serve as meeting evaluators, giving feedback to Council at the end of the meeting on
how well the meeting demonstrated the procedures and agreements Council adopted to
govern meetings. Dr. Shanks noted that he had some examples he would share with
the Council at a later time.
Dr. Shanks explained that, throughout the day, he would point out ways the Council
could be more effective at communicating with one another, residents, and staff. He
stated that he would do this at appropriate times during the exercises and Council
discussions. He reviewed the one page of ground rules with the Council and said that
these were primarily communication rules. He first reviewed the right side of the page,
noting that these rules for "hard negotiation" vs. "principled negotiation" came from
Getting to Yes' and pointed out that its authors had been connected with the Harvard
Negotiation Project. He noted that these rules had been effective with a wide range of
groups, including countries after a civil war. He also noted that the authors had written
Getting Past No and that Ury had recently written The Power of a Positive No.
1 Fisher,Roger,William Ury,and Bruce Patton. Getting to Yes:Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In(Second Edition). New
York:Penguin,1991,p.13.
City Council Minutes
September 20, 2008
Page 3 of 12
As he reviewed the ground rules for the meeting, Dr. Shanks made the following points:
1) The rules were designed to strengthen Council relationships during and after the
discussion.
2) Rather than seeing issues as competitions with a winner and a loser, the rules
encouraged Council members to participate fully and to operate collectively as a
Board of Directors with everyone sitting on the same side of the table working to
resolve a common problem collaboratively, amicably, and efficiently.
3) The rules applied whether Council members trust one another or not; trust was not
required for these rules to work well.
4) The two most important rules for the success of the meeting were:
a) Be hard on problems, soft on people (or"Separate the people from the
problem".) In other words, fight vigorously about ideas and issues, but never let
it become personal and do not "demonize" the person holding the position.
b) Focus on interests, not bottom-line positions. In other words, listen to the needs
beneath the position a member might take. Dr. Shanks shared the story of a
Santa Clara County group reaching consensus for the first time because they
first took the time to understand each other's needs, values, and goals. He noted
the effort was time well-spent because it was often a short step to develop
inclusive solutions (i.e., sustainable, often innovative, "win-win" solutions) to
which everyone is committed.
5) The remainder of the ground rules supported one or both of the two critical process
rules just described and were to:
a) Treat each other as one treats respected professional colleagues, which
prevents demonizing and personal attacks.
b) Use active listening, clarifying questions, eye-contact with the speaker,
appropriate body language to show respect, but also aid understanding.
6) Dr. Shanks encouraged the use of humor and demonstrated by reminding the
Council of the "thank you rule" to encourage efficiency. He explained "If I interrupt
you while you're speaking and say `thank you,' it means please stop talking.
Undoubtedly you will be saying something important, but we don't have the time for
all the points you are making and need to move along." He noted that Council
Members could also apply the rule to him; saying "thank you" and he would stop
talking.
City Council Minutes
September 20, 2008
Page 4 of 12
Dr. Shanks reported that he and Mayor Pro Tern Clark had completed the assignment
Council had given them at the end of the first Team Building session. He reported that
they met with Councilman Gardiner on May 8, 2008 to gain his input and brief him on
the first Team Building session, which he was unable to attend. Dr. Shanks reported
that the Summary Notes from the May 8, 2008 conversation were distributed with the
agenda for the second Team Building Meeting. He stated that based on the May 8th
conversation with Councilman Gardiner, as well as subsequent conversations with all
Council Members, the City Manager, and the City Attorney, it was his opinion that
nothing good would come from rehashing the past. He reported that charges and
counter-charges had been filed with the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) and
that the FPPC would eventually respond to those complaints. He noted that different
Council Members had differing memories and interpretations of the past and that
miscommunication and hurt had taken place on all sides. Dr. Shanks stated that the
situation was what it was, and suggested leaving the past in the past and, instead,
focusing on the present, so that the Council team could become more effective and
efficient as it moves forward. The Council Members agreed unanimously on this point.
Council Member Long distributed a response to the first draft of Dr. Shanks' Summary
Notes of the May 8, 2008 meeting between Mayor Pro Tern Clark, Councilman Gardiner
and Dr. Shanks as late correspondence and without comment. Dr. Shanks' first draft
had been distributed prior to the meeting.
Dr. Shanks distributed a final version of the Summary Notes of the May 8, 2008
meeting. He commented that he had requested Councilman Gardiner to review the first
draft and noted that he had incorporated many of Councilman Gardiners' suggestions
and details as originally shared with Dr. Shanks and Mayor Pro Tem Clark at their
meeting. Dr. Shanks clarified that he alone was the author of both the first draft and the
final version of the Summary Notes memorializing his recollection of the meeting.
Dr. Shanks introduced the first exercise of the Team Building Workshop. He stated that
despite different specific goals, every City Council had one common goal: to deliver
services and to act in such a manner that the Council and staff foster public trust. He
noted that fostering public trust was the duty of every government official in every local,
State, and Federal government agency. Dr. Shanks defined public trust as "the
people's confident reliance that their government Council and staff—works at all times,
in public and in private, for the best interests of all the people, whether the people are
watching or not." Dr. Shanks pointed out that the Declaration of Independence states
that government serves only with "the consent of the governed." He stated that the
people's consent rests on public trust, noting that public trust takes a long time to build
and a short time to lose. He stated, "Without public trust, democracy dies."
Dr. Shanks requested that each Council Member jot down answers to the following
question: What Council behaviors and actions are most likely to build public trust during
Council meetings? He noted that residents' judgments of the trustworthiness of their
government is based on what residents see and hear, and the meaning residents
assign to the words and actions of government officials.
City Council Minutes
September 20, 2008
Page 5 of 12
Council Members shared their individual answers to reach a consensus on a list of the
following trustworthy Council behaviors:
• Make decisions based on policy and principle, rather than personal bias
• Explain the reasoning behind one's vote
• Respectful treatment of residents at the podium
• Fully engaging in the deliberative process
• Coming to meetings prepared
• Enforcing consistent rules and treating every resident the same
• Being responsive
• Disclosing bias
• Listening carefully to everyone
• Being factually correct and open to new facts
• Mixing with residents outside of meetings
• Giving appropriate consideration to those who attend meetings
• Giving careful consideration to the interests of those who are not able or
comfortable attending meetings, and especially to those who may have the
greatest needs
• Making all decision in public light and guarding against the appearance of a
"done deal"
• Treating each other, staff, and residents respectfully and well
After this exercise, the Council decided on the following next steps:
1. Include in the Council report card a question like, "Did Council's words and
actions contribute to public trust or not? Give specific examples."
2. Post in the Council Chambers a sign that says something like, "As we do the
people's business, we try to do the following. Did we achieve it? Let us know."
Comment cards would be provided and carefully reviewed.
Dr. Shanks pointed out that an important step had been taken: the Council had reached
a consensus on a common set of core values and behaviors that it, as a group, wanted
to practice for the good of the residents of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. He
continued that another important step was that the Council needed to appreciate the
unique contributions of individual Council Members and the City Manager.
Dr. Shanks requested that each Council Member and the City Manager share his or her
answers to the following question: What do I bring to our common work?
1. Particular expertise
2. View of the world
3. Constituency I represent
4. Wrinkle (what might get in the way, what potential obstacle might I bring)
5. My commitment
City Council Minutes
September 20, 2008
Page 6 of 12
Dr. Shanks thanked the Council and the City Manager for their honest assessment of
individual strengths and challenges, noted the variety of approaches as well as the
common commitments to do their best for all the residents of the City. He reminded the
Council Members that each has different needs for information in order to make the best
decision.
After this exercise, the Council decided on the following possible report card questions
as part of the next steps:
1) Did Council Members treat each other and the staff professionally?
2) Did Council Members' needs receive appropriate attention without bogging down the
meeting?
Council discussion ensued on how to specifically make the meetings more effective and
efficient. Council and the City Manager highlighted the cost of long Council meetings
including the following issues: staff time and exhaustion, consultant costs, the difficulty
some staff members have in arriving for work the next morning, lost opportunities for
public participation, the rushing of items at the end of the meeting after spending too
much time on earlier items.
Council discussion continued regarding the following topics: following the Rules of
Order, making motions, and keeping to a time agenda. Council reviewed Rosenberg's
Rules of Order, which is a streamlined and Americanized version of Robert's Rules of
Order. Council Members noted that more formality (specifically by using motions to
focus the discussion and by referring to each other by formal title) might tend to
depersonalize and focus the discussion. The Council agreed that a good meeting was
comprised of the following: 1) A strong leader; 2) A clear agenda with time allotments;
3) Definite start and end times; 4) Clear recommendations from staff; 5) Consistent
procedures for members; 6) Consistent times for public comment; and 6) A summary of
actions.
After this exercise, the Council reached the following consensus for meetings as part of
the next steps:
1. The Mayor announces the agenda item and topic.
2. The Mayor and City Manager will have met ahead of time and worked through
the agenda, allocating times to each agenda item as much as possible.
3. Mayor asks staff to clearly identify the recommendation as illustrated on a
PowerPoint slide visible for the Council and public.
4. Council Members may ask the staff technical questions, especially to be sure
that the recommendation and the facts upon which it is based are clearly
understood. In addition, staff may also present alternative actions to the
recommendation.
City Council Minutes
September 20, 2008
Page 7 of 12
5. The public will be invited to comment on the item, with each member of the public
receiving the same amount of time and the use of a timer for the speakers. A
method should be developed to warn the speaker at 30 seconds left and when
the time has expired. The City Clerk will call "time" and the Mayor will thank the
speaker. Speakers will be encouraged to work together if they are making the
same points.
6. Staff may be asked additional questions, or to clarify matters after the receipt of
public comments.
7. Council Members may have a brief discussion, but as soon as possible a motion
should be made and seconded, with the purpose of clarifying and focusing the
discussion.
8. Council Members will be sensitive to each others' needs for information and
those needing more information will express their needs clearly. Council
Members are encouraged to ask questions prior to the Council meeting, during
briefings or phone calls with the City Manager or her delegate.
9. Council Members will form tentative opinions together stage by stage, rather than
suddenly jump ahead.
10.The Mayor will recognize the order for the Council speakers, with each Council
Member speaking once after a motion is made before anyone is allowed to speak
a second time. The Mayor is likely to be the last one to speak.
11.More items will be placed on the Consent Calendar in order to allow time for
more substantive items under Regular Business.
Council discussion continued and it was decided that: 1) the Mayor would announce the
changes in procedure at the next Council meeting; and, 2) Include the summary of the
meeting process in future agendas.
Deputy City Manager Petru joined the meeting at 11:20 A.M.
RECESS AND RECONVENE:
Mayor Stern called a brief lunch recess from 12:00 noon to 12:30 P.M.
2008 Organizational Assessment Final Report— Recommendations Matrix
Deputy City Manager Petru provided a summary staff report on the item.
Council and staff discussion ensued regarding the following: items in the
Recommendations Matrix to be implemented by staff; items for City Council decision;
and, modifications to specific recommendations.
Mayor Pro Tem Clark moved, seconded by Mayor Stern, to accept the
Recommendations Matrix as presented by staff, including status of the
City Council Minutes
September 20, 2008
Page 8 of 12
recommendations at the Administrative level and those for City Council decision, with
the exception of the following modifications: 1) Recommendation No. 22 is identified as
an Administrative decision; and, 2) Recommendation No. 44 is removed from the list.
Facilitated Council Workshop (continued)
Council resumed discussion of the new procedural rules and noted the following:
a) It is critical that the staff recommendation is clear and that Council Members
understand what they are being asked to decide.
b) Staff will work hard to be sure the language in the recommendation is as clear as
possible.
c) Council members should not rush into motions or seem to one-up each other
with the making of motions and counter-motions. There is no need for a
parliamentarian, except on rare occasions, and that is the appropriate role for the
City Attorney.
d) The Mayor may intervene if he senses that the Council needs to be directed back
to the matter under discussion.
Council discussion continued regarding the starting and stopping times for Council
meetings, including the following suggestions: alter the start time in order to have a hard
stop at 11:00 P.M.; no changes should be made to the start and stop times of the
meetings until the other methods procedural changes were given a chance to work.
The sense of the Council was to move everything up a half an hour so that: 1) Closed
sessions start at 5:30 P.M.; 2) Public meetings started at 6:30 P.M.; 3) The meetings
will have a hard stop at 11:30 P.M., with no new business taken up after 10:30 P.M.;
and, 4) Closed Sessions to be held less frequently and if a Closed Session could not be
finished prior to the meeting, it should be finished after the Regular meeting.
Dr. Shanks noted that the Council would need to agendize this matter and receive
public input prior to making any final decisions, especially if it would involve starting the
Regular Session 30 minutes earlier. The Council agreed to place the item on a future
agenda.
Noting that it was 4:00 P.M., Dr. Shanks asked the Council if they were willing to
continue discussion until 5:00 P.M. of the important issue of the City Council's role as
policy-maker and overseer and the issue of micromanagement.
Without objection, Mayor Stern so ordered.
Dr. Shanks explained that a key theme from his conversations with staff, which was also
echoed by some Council Members, was the need to clarify the role of the City Council.
Dr. Shanks reviewed the fundamental nature of the Council-Manager model which
includes the following role for Council:
City Council Minutes
September 20, 2008
Page 9 of 12
1) Council makes policy; appoints and evaluates the City Manager and the City
Attorney
2) Assures that its policy directions are being implemented
3) Approves the Budget
4) And conducts other Council level activities mandated by law, by the State Code,
or the City's Municipal Code.
Dr. Shanks described the City Manager's role as staffing the Council and serving as the
Chief Executive Officer of the City organization. He noted that by statute, the City
Manager is responsible for the following:
1) Hiring and evaluating all staff, with the exception of the City Attorney
2) Implementing and administering City Council policies
3) Establishing procedures for the smooth operation of the departments and the
delivery of City services
4) Recommending policy positions to the Council
5) And other administrative tasks.
Dr. Shanks described the approach of the Carver Policy Governance Model where the
Council would focus on the following:
1) "Ends policies" (or what it wants to accomplish for City residents and at what
cost)
2) "Means policies" (expressed as a set of nested negative statements—actions the
Council specifically bars the City Manager from taking in implementing Council
policies
3) Policies governing the way the Mayor conducts the meetings
4) Policies guiding the meetings themselves.
Dr. Shanks added that a special set of decisions are made about specific information
the Council needs in order to evaluate the City Manager. He noted that apart from
these policies, everything else is considered administration and in the hands of the City
Manager. He noted that in the model, advisory committees are appointed to advise the
Council about Council work, not to do the work of the staff or to advise the staff on their
work. He also noted that the City Manager may set up staff committees, but these
would be at her discretion.
Dr. Shanks noted that his observation was that the current Council, in its effort to do the
people's work, seemed to involve itself in micromanagement and often appeared to do
work that was appropriately staff implementation, rather than Council policy level work.
He stated that since the individual Council Members had expertise in finance,
government operations, law, and IT, the Council was often working at an administrative
level in those areas and staff was trying to respond. He noted this practice needed
careful review and opined that this might put the City organization at a long-term
disadvantage, since future Council Members would undoubtedly have different areas of
expertise. He noted that this would cause the staff to have to learn a very different set
City Council Minutes
September 20, 2008
Page 10 of 12
of operational procedures. He stated that in the extreme, this could lead future Councils
to cross the line between micromanagement and councilmanic interference, a law which
bars Councils in Council-Manager cities from over-involvement in the work of the staff.
City Manager Lehr noted that this was not currently a problem in the City.
Dr. Shanks provided an example of councilmanic interference from the City of Mountain
View, CA, where repeated attempts by the City Manager to fulfill his City-chartered
duties were made more difficult or impossible by the City's Mayor. He explained that
repeated conversations with the Mayor were fruitless and eventually, the City Manager
and City Attorney took the case to the District Attorney, who prosecuted the Mayor. He
reported that the Mayor was found guilty and removed from office by the court.
City Manager Lehr noted that Council communication with staff was working well in the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Mayor Pro Tem Clark noted that he did not think the Board model was an appropriate
analogy for the Council-Manager model. He stated that he thought of the City Manager
more as a Chief Operating Officer (COO) and the City Council (Board) as five Chief
Executive Officers (CEOs).
Dr. Shanks questioned this characterization and reviewed the duties of the City
Manager as listed in the Municipal Code.
Council Members noted that a corporate Board of Directors is elected, as are Council
Members.
Dr. Shanks stated that it was probably best not to use any of these analogies, because
the Council-Manager model was a unique entity, with its own challenges, and that the
history and culture of every City added even more challenges.
After this discussion and as part of the next steps, Dr. Shanks recommended that the
Council consider a third Team Building Session to focus on the relationship between
Council, City Manager, and staff; policy-making vs. implementation; micromanagement
and Council goals; and, the information it needed for policy oversight and the evaluation
of the City Manager. He stated that he and staff could return with best practices and
other methods for the Council to sort through these important issues.
Without objection, the Council agreed that City Manager Lehr should schedule another
session with Dr. Shanks.
Dr. Shanks reviewed the next steps the Council had determined as it went through the
day. He stated that he would work with the City Manager to draft a possible report card
based on these next steps for the Council to consider at a future meeting and affirmed
that he would be back for the third Team Building Session the Council had decided to
hold. He shared research with the Council Members that demonstrates that public trust
City Council Minutes
September 20, 2008
Page 11 of 12
grows as Council and staff members provide superb services, excellent quality of life,
positive daily impact on residents' lives, impeccable leadership ethics, and honorable
political campaigns. He noted that the two Team Building Sessions directly or indirectly
addressed all of these factors, with the exception of honorable campaigns. He thanked
each Council Member and City Manager Lehr for a very productive meeting and
commended them for working together to build public trust as they did their best to
complete the people's business effectively, efficiently, and amicably.
ADJOURNMENT:
At 5:20 P.M., Mayor Stern adjourned the meeting.
Den,L.
Mayor
Attest:
,
i
City Clerk
W:\City Council Minutes\2008\20080920 CC MINS ADJ MTG TEAM BLDG.doc
City Council Minutes
September 20, 2008
Page 12 of 12