 |
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
|
Text of City Light Follow-Up Letter February 5, 2003 Hon. Heidi Wills, Chair Dear Councilmember Wills: The Municipal League of King County has been actively interested in the quality of management of Seattle City Light. The League conducted a study of the utility and submitted its findings to the city council in a report in March 2002 that raised several questions about the management of the utility and recommended the city conduct a performance audit of the utility. The audit, conducted by Vantage Consulting, Inc., made several critical findings regarding utility management and noted that the city council had not conducted reconfirmation of the Superintendent as required by the Seattle Municipal Code. The reconfirmation process the city council is now conducting is an appropriate response to this audit finding. The reconfirmation is an important and legally required opportunity for the city council to exercise its responsibility to guide and oversee the utility. The Municipal League of King County looks to the council to utilize all of the information and recommendations of the Vantage report in deciding whether or not to reconfirm Superintendent Zarker. The challenges to be faced by a future Superintendent, such as reducing debt load, enhancing planning capability, repairing a dysfunctional institutional culture, and dealing with long-term commitments to high power costs, are extremely daunting. The council must decide whether the incumbent is the appropriate person to deal with these challenges, and hence to lead the utility back to the sound fiscal condition and certain supply of energy the citizens of Seattle have long enjoyed. We believe that the goal of the reconfirmation process you are now undertaking is to place Seattle City Light in a position to recover this enviable state. Recognizing that conditions have changed and that the responsibilities of the utility are more complex than they were when it was founded, we believe that the highest standards of management and performance should be the routine at City Light. We appreciate the fact that the council’s reconfirmation process draws widely on community, expert and stakeholder input and will result in a broad review of Seattle City Light’s condition and prospects. Additionally, because of the reviews and studies of the utility done in the past year, you now have much more information on which to base your reconfirmation decision and indeed your continuing oversight. As you proceed with the important task of reconfirmation of the Seattle City Light Superintendent, the Municipal League submits the following suggestions regarding the conduct of this process: It is critically important that the decision making process on the proposed reconfirmation be fair, even-handed and non-political. We are concerned that the process may already have diverged from that standard. The manner in which the reconfirmation process is conducted will have real impact on the way Seattle citizens view their local government. The occasion of the reconfirmation allows the council to ensure that needed improvements (most notably those recommended in the Vantage report) do in fact occur in utility leadership and management. To that end we urge you to require specific, measurable conditions and deadlines for each agreed-upon goal. We believe important information and insights can and should be drawn from City Light staff and contractors who have been closest to the situation. Many of these employees and contractors may not be willing to come forward to provide information for fear of retaliation. We recommend that the city council establish and broadly notify citizens of a mechanism ensuring protection from retaliation for those who wish to provide input into your reconfirmation decision but who do not feel that they can do so safely under the usual rules for public input. One way to do this might be for the council to consider paying more attention than it usually would to third party or anonymous contributions on this matter. Fairness to the subject of reconfirmation and protection for those providing information are both important goals; they must be carefully balanced. The council should make a careful and public accounting of the cumulative costs of the many actions needed to repair the problems at City Light, and consider how these costs might be reduced or avoided by the decisions made during the reconfirmation process. You have asked the Municipal League and others to suggest questions to be addressed by the City Light Superintendent during the reconfirmation process. The League suggests the questions contained in the attachment to this letter. Regarding all questions submitted to the Superintendent, including how he will respond as well to the Vantage recommendations for improvements, the council should insist that the responses contain specific, measurable assurances of the actions to be taken and the schedule to be followed in carrying them out. The council should also make provision in its calendar for periodic review of progress against the schedule of expected results. It would also be worth giving careful consideration to scheduling a further assessment by the Vantage Consulting team to help the council gauge progress made towards needed improvements. The experience of the past few years has shown too clearly the potential for adverse consequences when Seattle’s citizens, elected leadership, and indeed the leadership of Seattle City Light as well, do not attend carefully to the wide variety of risks that are inherent in City Light’s planning and operation. Sincerely, CC: Peter Steinbrueck, Council President
Municipal League of
King County
|
| See Also |
|
