Local citizens could rejuvenate democracy

 

America has lost touch with the motto printed on our tax dollars. E Pluribus Unum – out of many, one. Can we the people re-gather strength from our diverse talents and perspectives to restore the common good?

Not if our government excludes us from shared responsibilities, like making sure our money is used wisely for things we care about. It weakens us when leaders go off on their own — when they oppose funding for public services at every turn, or alternately spend huge sums on compelling causes without putting provisions in place for oversight. Self-governance suffers when officials ignore core needs while subsidizing luxurious pet projects.

Partisan dogfights distract us from addressing this problem at the federal and state levels. Yet folks can fix it locally if we revive the spirit of community. This requires a different kind of leadership, one that broadens consensus and rebuilds our capacity for teamwork.

Cannon Beach, Oregon is poised to either revive this democratic spirit, as befits the spunky village, or steamroll over it with top-down authority. The choice hinges on whether citizens can convince city officials to improve public oversight for three big-ticket capital projects. If that doesn’t happen, the tony tourist destination is on course to become less than a self-governing community, more like an executive-run country club.

Need for more public oversight is evidenced by escalating costs and the local Design Review Board’s unanimous rejection of a proposed site plan for the first of these projects. Some local citizens believe these pitfalls are in part the result of a rider attached to the city manager’s compensation package. A “project completion bonus” was adopted last year that rewards ranking staff for keeping his thumb on the Go button.

When the city council approved this incentivized push, one member voiced the need to tie it to job performance. Apparently that need was interpreted by other officials as a requirement for the lead pusher to simply continue serving as city manager. I see little if any evidence of accountability for key performance measures like cost control and community buy-in.

A common tactic for project pushers is to dismiss those who express such concerns as knee-jerk naysayers. If that were true, the chief elected official who approved that bonus, and has long championed these projects in concept, would not now be part of a broad civic effort to bring them back in line with longstanding local values.

“These projects are important,” Sam Steidel recently reiterated in one of our many sidewalk conversations. “In fact they’re too important to be managed by someone who’s proving himself unwilling to control costs, or who’s unable to make sure architectural plans are in keeping with community standards.” 

Sam and I have disagreed sometimes during the decades he served as mayor, council member, and chair of the planning commission. Yet our mutual advocacy for the grade school renovation project has deepened our civic bond. Same goes for many in the community who want to see the old gymnasium, classrooms and food bank building refurbished for public use. For me this effort has always been coupled with the dream of cross-cultural events and expanded community programming that benefits residents and visitors alike.

The school has stood empty for many years after it was vacated by government due to its location in a tsunami-vulnerable zone. Building renovations that are compatible with this risk have long been a goal for folks like Sam and me. However, that support never implied that either of us wants a project of super-sized scale and runaway costs (the estimated expense for the grade school renovation has tripled, and continues to rise).

Apparently some leaders need a refresher lesson on consent. A comparison between civic governance and interpersonal relations is appropriate. When someone expresses a desire for friendship, starts giving hugs, this does not mean it’s OK to pursue sex with them. Even if romance does unfold, pay attention if the person says no at any point. Take this friend at their word, respectfully step back, and listen to concerns. Don’t brush aside objections with a smile, saying hey, you asked for this.

This proposed project has eroded my trust in local leaders and strained a few friendships. Thankfully, it has also introduced me to some smart creative citizens who I didn’t know before this conflict came to the forefront.

Residents like Don Stastny, for example, a nationally-known architect who, with his wife Jan, purchased land on the north end of Cannon Beach in 1975 and built their home in 2000.  Don has proven his talents over many years, especially in his projects for Native American tribes and bands. Our recent communications about the proposed school renovation leave no doubt that he supports the Design Review Board’s decision. His work for Native people upholds some universal truths about dealing with any community in identifying needs and values.

“Without genuine oversight,” he says, “the process for gathering input can become more about packaging than contents. This can result in a lack of public buy-in, even as construction moves forward.”

Another person I’m grateful to be getting to know is Liz Scott, Outreach Manager of the Cannon Beach History Center and Museum. Liz and her co-worker Andrea Suarez-Kemp have been working hard to expand exhibits and programming on Indigenous culture at the Center. They’re also an integral part of the team that’s hosting a weekend celebration of Native American Heritage Month.

“We’ve felt overlooked by city staff in their project planning,” says Liz. “It wasn’t until last month that we were asked how our efforts to spotlight Indigenous people might fit with plans at the old elementary school. That was late in the game if the city wants to avoid duplication of services.”

To date, government leaders have circled the wagons to fend off any and all concerns regarding these projects. They have ignored, deflected and gaslighted input from valuable community members like Sam and Don and Liz. One official even questioned the intelligence of Design Review Board members, suggesting they were simply opposed to change. The same person recently predicted the DRB decision would soon be negated by city council members, suggesting that by overturning this decision, officials would be servicing the community.

There’s a big difference between gathering consensus and fabricating consent. Lots of bureaucratic ploys can be used by insiders to accomplish the latter. Recently someone in city government attempted to subvert my concerns about the school renovation plans, as communicated in a letter my wife Jennifer and I sent last month to the Design Review Board. Someone stuffed an official meeting packet with a letter I wrote in 2021 expressing general support for the project. This was done to suggest I now have no right to be concerned about overspending public money on an outsized plan, even as this divides our community and undermines the integrity of a project I continue to support in concept.

If officials manipulate the record in a governmental forum, what else will they do to push their agenda? Civic engagement is an essential part of planning. Concerned citizens are allies in the work to complete projects in accordance with community standards. It abuses us when leaders behave otherwise.

What comes next? In a self-governed community, project architects would return to their work with fresh insight, energy, and perspective. They would sharpen pencils, adjust their plan, and address public concerns.

Unfortunately, it appears private contractors are instead moving full steam ahead on behalf of project pushers. Officials are apparently counting on our submission to a top-down kind of power that will continue to make us less than the sum of our parts. The least leaders can do now is host a formal public hearing, even if they’ve already made up their minds.

Cannon Beach may not end up being a model for American democracy. Maybe the city will serve as another useful example of how things go wrong. Nevertheless, the spirit is always with us to improve stewardship of resources and make sure government serves everyone. When something divides people this much, it’s time to take a step back and re-gather in a way that honors who we are.