Part 2: WHITHER GARLAND?: Best to always ask, "Who else needs to know?"

             One tiny word—secrecy—but it represents a dynamic that causes stalemates and boondoggles where numerous Garland projects can't get accomplished.

"Who else needs to know?"

My wife's manager during the last job she held in the corporate world was almost a broken record with this question he posed to her constantly. When her editing team was about to roll out a new book or initiative or make some revolutionary change in the way things were done, he would query her endlessly about whether all the bases had been touched, commucations-wise.

This is the same message we both experienced while working in the corporate culture of the Houston Chronicle: run everything by the proper people. No surprises. Don't keep someone crucial out of the loop, so no opposition arises over procedural matters.

At the heart of the current political crisis facing Garland lies the mayor's penchant for secrecy and the council's curious hesitation to take on the issue more aggressively by the horns.

Let me say that again: "Who else needs to know?"

That practice of analyzing "Who else needs to know?" doesn't seem to be at the forefront of the mayor's modus operandi and that of some of our other Garland leaders.

It should be no surprise that the current issue between the mayor and council involves his secrecy tendencies, particularly his penchant for forming secret task forces to address issues. The matter involving the task force (aka ad hoc committee) on makerspaces and the old National Guard Armory buildings on the edge of Central Park is just the latest example of Athas' working in the shadows.

In this case, even the city’s Parks Department failed to follow the maxim when it abruptly started planning to tear down the South Garland Little League field as part of a bigger plan to tear down the armory and build dog and skate parks on the east side of Central Park along Glenbrook.

This framed artwork in our home reminds us of a question Kay's boss asked again and again when her team was rolling out this series of products: "Who else needs to know?", making sure all corporate bases were covered with proper communication.

Some neighbors in the nearby Embree neighborhood surrounding the controversial sites first complained about the possibility of a makerspace in the old armory, then later others complained about the last-minute notice regarding the dog and skate parks and the proposed demolition of the main armory building—that they had not had adequate awareness and input on any of the issues.

I’m sure these neighbors in Embree must feel whipsawed by all the communications blunders that have occurred on the Central Park side of their neighborhood.

Athas' tenure as mayor is littered with similar examples.

Councilmembers are wary of Athas’ tendency to secrecy, but I'm sometimes surprised that they have never brought this matter to the table to be addressed comprehensively and publicly. 

Individual council members have lashed out at the mayor on City TV over select issues related to secrecy, but it has never been addressed globally. Council could have called for a concerted study of the mayor's covert operations along this line, but never has. There certainly has been major concentrated effort to look into his expense report policies and his boards and commissions appointments.
 

Athas, one of Garland's most veteran politicians, is also quite skilled at envisioning ideas that are good for Garland. However, at the same time he seriously lacks some of the communications skills to pull these off. It's a regrettable combination.


I have firsthand knowledge of the inside of this situation. Shortly after his election as mayor, Doug Athas arrived at my home and then returned on several occasions to ask if I would chair his new Mayor's Task Force on Historical Preservation. I was honored and delighted; I accepted. He brought me books on historical preservation, gave me some great ideas, and in so many ways mentored me for my current interest in historical preservation in Garland.

Weeks after the task force began meeting, the mayor and I were in a public meeting with citizens. Athas told that group the task force was "a secret task force" and that they were not to leave the room and talk about anything he or I had said.

I thought he was joking and afterward asked him why he would make such an unusual comment. He was very clear he considered our task force to be "secret"—despite having just made this announcement to a well-networked group of people with many contacts throughout the city. How could it possibly be secret after this announcement? I wondered. I was very clear that I work in daylight, not darkness.

After that I tried to see that all councilmembers were informally briefed about the work of the task force—though I got my ears burned by several who were extremely bothered that the mayor was not keeping council as a group informed about our task force's activities.
 

I did what I believed was necessary; the mayor did what he believed was his right.
  

I also made certain that District 2 Councilmember Anita Goebel, in whose district much historical-preservation activity occurs, was invited to all meetings and encouraged to participate. Her name appears frequently in the minutes to the meetings.
 

The road on which that task force traveled was rocky at times. After Phase 1 of the work was finished (and successfully, I might add), I found myself mostly shut out of future mayoral task forces and totally minimized as a part of the city's next effort to add the Garland Downtown Historic District to the National Register of Historic Places—despite the fact that under Kay’s and my leadership our Travis College Hill Historic District became the first site ever in the history of Garland to be added to that prestigious federal registry. We did it at ZERO cost to the city, while the undisclosed city costs for the Square may have run into the multi thousands of dollars.

I was the guy with all the history and experience on this subject, but until I complained loud and long, I was not sought out in this next crucial process involving the Downtown district.


Experience didn't matter. Being unwilling to operate in the shadows and darkness did seem to be majorly important.


Now, don't get me wrong: I see no problem with a mayor having a "kitchen cabinet", a "citizens advisory council" on some matter, or even a "task force" to study a subject. Calling it secret, or allowing it to be discovered that the committee has been at work for a long time already without the rest of the council knowing, however, sets off dynamics with councilmembers and the public that are not good for anyone.

Then, the "secrecy" becomes the issue—not the merits of the subject studied.

The mayor's explanation for wanting the "secret" task forces was that the council members he disliked (or feared—I could never decide which) so intently would somehow work against the ultimate outcome of the task force.

I found exactly the opposite to be true. Councilmembers that the mayor identified as his enemies turned out to be key supporters of projects the "secret" task force I headed proposed. They seemed to appreciate my efforts to keep them informed and up-to-date on all we were doing.

We seem to be a city of secrets and that holds us back. I much prefer that we be a city of truth and light!

(Tomorrow: Do citizens really count?)