April 25, 2009 12:39 AM UTC

My sit-down with Jane

• 0 Comments
• by: DavidThi808

I got the chance to interview Boulder City Manager Jane Bratigaum this morning. She was very gracious and professional. So what do we have with Jane?

I think we have a very good match here – a conservative manager for a conservative city. Now before everyone explodes, I use the term conservative in the original meaning of the word – that everyone wants things to stay as they are and whatever change does occur should occur very very slowly and only after thorough discussion, investigation, etc. In that sense Boulder has a very good match with Jane.  

Jane also is very clearly a manager implementing the council policy, not someone fighting the council. Many city managers try to act like mayors and that is almost always a mess. We clearly don’t have that with Jane.

Exhibit 1, I asked her if she could have the City Council pass one bill what would it be – and her response was virtually one of horror over the idea that she would even propose a bill. And she was then very adamant that there was nothing, absolutely nothing she would propose if told she could have any bill passed. This did not come across as what she was supposed to say – it came across as something that is not even open for consideration.

Exhibit 2, I asked her about what the hardest part of working with Council is. And she dove into the difficulty and time commitment of communicating fully with 9 people. Her previous City had 7 council members and she said 2 additional people is a significant additional hit. Which comes back to her viewing a large part of her job being the implementation under the leadership of the council.

Ok, so on to the budget. What is going to happen? There will be meetings. There will be studies. There will be presentations. There will be retreats. There will be surveys. AARGH! Ok, I realize this is how it works. And this desire to run it through this system is a necessary part of our democracy. But like getting a flu shot, the fact that it’s a good thing does not mean I have to like it.

And at the end of this process the council will set policy priorities, budget priorities, what is cut, what is included (with each pushing for the items they most value to be included). And then she will implement that budget. And again, she clearly sees this as a process just starting and this process will determine what happens.

So nothing to report on what will be reduced, what will be cut, and what will be left alone.

I also asked about systemic changes – where instead of cutting back or working harder, they find a different way to provide a service that significantly reduces costs. She said the IT department is looking for ways it can improve (which is the best first place to look) and they are looking for duplication across departments. But nothing major on finding different ways to provide services.

I then asked about the police department budget as it’s the largest single department in the city budget. And her response to this was that the police & fire budget is to be left alone. That police, fire, & roads are the core services a city provides and that Boulder is providing those at the appropriate level with good efficiency and therefore no cuts there.

During this part of the discussion at one point she said the budget for the police was not something she could recall. Pretty clearly she views this as running well and so she can pay it less attention than other areas. And as she views her role as implementing council policy, I’d say this reflects the view on council too.

So Boulder take heart, we may have libraries closed and parks ignored – but there will be money to pay for police to arrest naked people running with pumpkins on their heads.

I asked her about the proposed new C.U. building over on Grand Avenue. She does not know how hard the city will fight this issue because that decision is up to council. She did talk about the rough legal position the city is in because the University can do pretty much what it wants. Then in the next breath she talked about wanting to improve city-university relations. She is definitely focused on keeping things civil and discussions open regardless of how this plays out.

We then talked about housing. I asked about the choice facing Boulder, we can grow out, we can grow higher, or we can grow richer. She did speak well to this and said that Boulder has clearly decided to make us an island so growing out is not an option.

She then discussed denser housing. When I said did that mean taller she countered that no, it meant smaller units for everyone so more would fit in the existing envelope. She then talked about how people would need to make a lifestyle change to then live in that size of a unit. This is a pipe dream where the city is trying to avoid some hard choices it must make – but it appears to be the present “answer.”

She then talked about the city’s commitment to affordable housing. When I asked about how most people buying affordable units were people gaming the system to make themselves fit the criteria, she was very adamant (almost angry) that that does not occur and that the affordable housing group in the city does a good job verifying eligibility. Based on her reaction I think she honestly thinks it is running well – and maybe the way it plays out here is as good as it gets for affordable. But I would have preferred to hear that yes they know people game it like crazy and they are working to eliminate that.

And what discussion of housing would be complete without Washington Elementary (note: my wife worked for Jim Leach for a couple of years – she left before all the Washington drama). Jane thinks that worked well because everyone was able to present their opinions and the final compromise was one where everyone was unhappy but could live with the result. And as she rightly points out, that is a good measure of a reasonable compromise.

So for housing it looks like for now the answer to high prices is a push for smaller rooms and business as usual on who gets affordable units (ie prices will keep rising).

I asked her about cell phone conversations while driving (she apparently spends most of her time driving on the phone) and what she’ll do when Claire Levy’s bill is passed. She said she will happily put her phone down because it’s dangerous talking while driving. Personally this strikes me as saying the only reason a person doesn’t drive after drinking is because it’s against the law. With that said, that’s the same response of most people now.

She finished up by talking about what she hopes to accomplish. Implementing the Climate Action Plan is at the top of her list. She sees this as a major ongoing effort that is really important. (And while we can quibble over the specifics – the basic idea is a very good idea.) This is a major difficult endeavor, this is council policy, and this is something new. So it’s a natural top priority for her.

There you have it. Jane is executing her job in the manner it is designed for. Yes she has significant influence due to her job but she is not a power center on policy. She is trying to take Boulder where it wants to go. And while I’d like to see Boulder change its direction on numerous issues, I am also glad to see Jane is not trying to effect change on her own as that is not the role of her job. So time will tell but I think she may turn out to be a very good city manager.

I also think if she does her job properly many will be upset that she did not take a more active role on policy (in the direction each person wanted).

first published at Liberal and Loving It