In a Reader Opinion piece published in The JOLT on Monday, “Questions after a landslide (election),” John Gear raised appropriate questions about what he called the “crushing” NO vote on the proposed regional fire authority.
Unfortunately, to date, I have not heard any Olympia or Tumwater council member who supported the proposal, provide the "out-loud public reflection" Mr. Gear hopes to hear.
To the contrary: I note that Olympia Councilmember Lisa Parshley’s election night analysis was that the problem wasn’t the plan, it was the opposition's alleged spreading of misinformation that was the problem. Here is the quote from The Olympian from April 26, 2023, "Parshley said she believes the RFA plan was solid and that misinformation spread by those against the proposition led to the negative result."
I don't believe that that kind of statement is the public reflection Mr. Gear hoped to hear or the conversation we as a community need. It is the kind of statement that further divides a community that should be working to heal the underlying problems.
For example, my initial emotional reaction was a desire to challenge Councilmember Parshley to produce specifics about her allegation of the opposition’s "misinformation." I also felt her statement disrespected the voters who had ample opportunity to hear both sides make their best cases. I also thought about how good it might make me feel to present the numerous and easily documented examples of “misinformation” made by the pro side.
We agree on the same ends and share many values …
But then I reflected upon the whole RFA process and refrained from acting on these emotion driven responses because after watching and listening closely, I knew that both sides wanted the same outcome for their efforts --- excellent fire and emergency services.
I also think that both sides desire efficiency and, if more money is needed, to pay for it in a progressive manner. In short, we agree on the outcome, and we also share many of the values that help guide how we approach policy making.
Agreeing on the outcome and many of the values is a good start to building a community that is more cohesive and respectful towards each other – perhaps providing at least a temporary haven from the polarized rhetoric of national politics – at least for a while, at least on this important issue on which we agree on the ends.
… can that be a good start for greater understanding and better policy making?
Yes, we don’t agree on the means to get to that shared end. Fortunately, we are blessed with a democracy that allows us to mediate and process those differences through fact- and evidence-based dialog. A dialog that respects the voters’ ability to reach sound decisions about issues facing their community. I believe that the RFA discussion presented an opportunity for the voters to weigh the proposal's merits. Voters concluded that the RFA Plan failed to present convincing evidence of a problem that required sacrificing our values and additional public resources to address.
My hope is that the cities will do a deep analysis of the organizational dynamics that resulted in such a flawed plan. No, it was not that the sponsors did a bad job selling a good plan. Nor was it that the opposition misrepresented a “solid” plan. It was a bad plan from start to finish – narrowly selected participants, predetermined limits on potential solutions, and based on assumptions and data that were not fact-checked and then poorly implemented (see The JOLT’s story about errors in the official RFA calculator).
But along with the plan’s problems is an equally important question about the organizational culture -- in the RFA Planning Committee, the city councils, and their executive leadership -- that produced such a flawed plan despite internally raised concerns. Through public records requests I found instances where voices inside of these organizations raised red flags early on, yet the plan moved forward with those voices apparently unheard. The cities even hired a quality control consultant who warned them of problems, and the cities failed to address them.
Beyond this policy failure, what are the root causes?
Having studied and taught about, albeit much larger, organizational failures that led to the war in Vietnam, the war in Iraq and the O-ring failure of the Space Shuttle Challenger, I know these failures are not unavoidable accidents. Rather they are the result of knowable and, too often, previously identified organizational dysfunction. They are costly not only in wasted lives and treasure but in undermining the confidence and faith of the public in their leaders.
They also take a toll on the organization’s employees. Many suffer from the cognitive dissonance of knowing something to be true but it cannot be said out loud inside their organization. Or if said, won’t be heard -- or worse, heard and then pay the price for not being a “team player.” It not only takes an emotional or professional toll on the employees, it also deprives the organization of the knowledge and input that would help it make better decisions.
Disappointingly, at several stages in the RFA Planning Committee’s work, the Plan’s shortcomings were raised by the council members themselves. Yet the committee as a whole drove forward without addressing them. At one point, Councilmember Cooper, sounding exasperated, pleaded that alternatives to the complex Fire Benefit Charge formula be found that were not regressive, and a firefighter union member confessed they could not explain the formula to their own family, let alone the public. Sadly, and repeatedly, the consultants, who seemed to have a vested interest in using the formula they have promoted to other fire jurisdictions, discouraged, or distracted council members from acting on their common sense and values.
As the RFA Planning Committee work continued, doubts and misgivings seemed to give way to groupthink and the social pressure to fall in line to support the imperfect plan. At some points in the process, several members (including Councilmember Parshley) would admit to the problems and argue that after the voters pass it, they can revisit it and fix the problems they knew it had in their “solid” plan.
Voters did a great service for elected officials
The voters did a great service for our elected representatives. They avoided a potential catastrophic outcome by not approving the RFA’s flawed design and even more flawed implementation. If passed, it would surely have been challenged in court, and a third or more of the funding would have been delayed or eliminated. We would have faced closing fire stations and laying off firefighters – likely worse than we see today with the West Thurston Regional Fire Authority, whose voters last fall said no to its levy request.
Now is the time for our elected officials to do the voters a great service.
Regarding root causes, the council and its administrators should take this opportunity to look inward at their processes and culture that, but for the overwhelming majority of voters, could have led to disaster.
Regarding improving or maintaining high-quality fire and emergency services, please take this opportunity to learn from the voters. Learn from your own employees. Don’t hire more public information officers or consultants to hone your messaging; they won’t help you improve your listening.
Instead, reach out to those who opposed the RFA and create a community forum for a true dialog unconstrained by vested interests and predetermined outcomes and where the community can talk and learn from each other to find the best means to the end that we all share.
Larry Dzieza is a former budget director and budget analyst for multiple state agencies. For several years he also served as an adjunct professor teaching budget and finance and “digital government” at The Evergreen State College Master of Public Administration graduate program. He currently teaches budgeting and strategic planning at the University of Washington Tacoma’s Certified Public Manager Program.
The opinions expressed above are those of the writer and not necessarily those of The JOLT's staff or board of directors. Got something to say about a topic of interest to Thurston County residents? Send it to us, and we’ll most likely publish it. See the Contribute your news button at the top of every page.
8 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
olyhiker
The people I've talked to were unhappy about more taxes and the probability that they would increase without voter approval.
Thursday, May 4, 2023 Report this
TomInOly
Cogent analysis. I completely agree and hope the councils can step outside of their self-reinforcing support structure far enough to acknowledge there were significant issues with the plan they and the highly-paid consultants developed and then begin an open and honest dialogue about how to move forward.
Friday, May 5, 2023 Report this
KatAshe
I want to thank Larry for his detailed evaluation of this failed proposal.
The concept of consolidating services is still a good idea, but we need a real, financially prudent execution, not one that taxes us out of our homes while providing little improvement to existing services.
Friday, May 5, 2023 Report this
BevBassett
Our community is blessed to have the kind and brilliant Larry Dzieza giving so generously of himself! That Larry uses his knowledge and experience with government, budgets, management, analysis to help citizens understand things like the RFA/Proposition 1 is a gift to us ordinary people. And we ordinary people don't get that from our elected officials at all, in my experience.
My City only seems to hear the voices they want to hear--the voices of special interests.
My experience of our City of Olympia elected officials leaves me distrusting and cynical. My experience has been that i can speak up and speak out about what's important to me and us, over and over for years, and talk 'till i'm blue in the face,' and they'll maybe let me speak for two or three timed minutes, but it won't matter what i've said, they will never listen and hear what i, and others, have to say... I can absolutely count on being ignored. Every time.
Above, Larry says so compellingly:
"Regarding improving or maintaining high-quality fire and emergency services, please take this opportunity to learn from the voters. Learn from your own employees. Don’t hire more public information officers or consultants to hone your messaging; they won’t help you improve your listening.
Instead, reach out to those who opposed the RFA and create a community forum for a true dialog unconstrained by vested interests and predetermined outcomes and where the community can talk and learn from each other to find the best means to the end that we all share."
Yet, its wishful thinking on Larry's part (and mine too) that our elected officials will ever sincerely engage with and listen to the voices of the smart and well organized group of people who successfully worked to defeat the RFA because it was so bad! They never have before in my experience. They blow us off systematically and routinely. Our words fall on deaf ears.
WHY? I ASK YOU WHY??
And i'd be willing to bet anybody who'd be foolish enough to take me on that Lisa Parshley and the other City Council members (except Clark Gillman who was the single no vote when the Council voted to send Prop 1 to the voters) would never ever, EVER, "create a community forum for a true dialog unconstrained by vested interests and predetermined outcomes and where the community can talk and learn from each other to find the best means to the end that we all share" for essential fire and emergency service. Believe me.
Prove me wrong, Lisa Parshley, et all...
Friday, May 5, 2023 Report this
Larry - been a long time. You raised some good points in your article. I hope that the council leaders have learned from their mistakes. In regards to West Thurston RFA, I live in that area and have felt they have done a great job. Unfortunate that the property owners in the area didn't realize it was an extension of the operations levy and not a new levy and the reason it seemed higher is that the property values had a huge increase.
Friday, May 5, 2023 Report this
HappyOlympian
Parshley could not have been more insulting or arrogant with her response as to why the public said "no". Parshley was on the planning committee for the RFA and should be able to readily provide multiple examples of "disinformation", so I ask her to do so. Voting for her in the last election was a mistake I will not repeat in 2025.
Saturday, May 6, 2023 Report this
bobesan
Well, I contributed this assessment re :the OCC problem of listening to others. It does appear that they had their own agenda (notably, annexing the Wildwood area) as part of the RFA goal:
Vadas, B. 2023a. Eco-social activist/scientist sees dysfunction in the Olympia City Council. Works In Progress (Olympia, WA) 33(5): 13 (https://olywip.org/eco-social-activist-scientist-sees-dysfunction-in-the-olympia-city-council).
And now they want to put artificial turf in for the Yelm Hwy. Pk. in that area, which (containing recycled rubber) will likely contribute to coho-prespawning mortality in the Deschutes R. & its tributaries. Real grass is better.
Sunday, March 3 Report this
bobesan
Oops, I meant the Wilderness area to the SE of incorporated Oly.
Sunday, March 3 Report this