Last year, it seemed as if a new recruitment campaign was underway to change the way the Mayor and Common Council went about choosing appointments to boards and commissions. The open calls, held with council members seemed like a good way to get people outside of the political process involved. Sadly, these open calls haven’t resumed under the 2007-2009 administration, which is too bad. Too bad because most of the acrimony over appointments in the past was based on the struggle to move appointments out of the back room political process and into the more businesslike approach of matching talent to position.

With the majority of registered voters choosing unaffiliated, rather than a political party, the talent pool of people lies very much outside the two party political system. Both Democrats and Republicans have to change the mindset that they are in a two party system. The viability of the unaffiliated as a third party is reflected in the registration totals.

Yet, the system in place now, basically relies on having a political party connection in order to offer to volunteer to serve on boards and commissions. In my case, definitely pre-blog days, my letter and resume advanced because I had worked on some political campaigns. That visibility certainly is fine, but it shouldn’t be the only criteria. Which is why it is so perplexing that both Amanda Brown, Steve Serasis and Doug Sutton consistently abstain vote on many appointments. The Hour reports:

A year after division flared among Common Council members over the appointment process, Republican Mayor Richard A. Moccia’s appointees to city boards and commissions are generally passing muster with council Democrats.

Democrats, who hold nine of 15 council seats, have voted ‘Yeah’ on many of Moccia’s appointees. And, they’ve voted ‘Nay’ on those appointees with whom they’re not satisfied.

Not so with Councilman Douglas W. Sutton, an at-large Democrat who for months has abstained from every vote on every appointment put forward by Moccia, be the person a Democrat, Republican or unaffiliated voter.

Sutton said his abstentions are not unique.

“Other people have (abstained voting on appointments) on the Republican side as well. An abstention means that you choose not to voice an opinion on the issue,” Sutton said. “There are other people who have abstained as well. What do they have to say? (And) there are people who are resigning, appointed and reappointed. It’s not strictly appointments. Abstentions are always interesting. I’m not the issue.”

Following his re-election to a second two-year term last November, Moccia put forward nearly two-dozen persons for appointment or reappointment to city boards and commissions. The council approved all but one. Sutton abstained from all votes. Several other Democrats abstained from some but not all votes.

Four months later, Moccia says he’s perplexed why Sutton continues to abstain.

“A council person is supposed to be there to vote, or to explain why there are so many abstentions,” Moccia said. “And I find it interesting that he’s even abstained on minority appointments, from African Americans to women, and never once given an explanation — does he have a problem with the appointment or whatever.”

“I just think that if he has a problem with an appointment, then approach me. But to abstain on every single appointment just doesn’t make sense to me,” Moccia said.

In March 2007, council Democrats sparred over the appointment process.

Matthew T. Miklave Miklave charged fellow Democrat Michael W. Coffey with putting forward the name of a Republican for appointment to the Historical Commission without notifying some Democrats.

According to Miklave, the handling of the appointment — brought forward after a closed-door council recess — represented “politicians working in the closet to cut some kind of a deal that the public will not know anything about.”

Coffey, council president at the time, countered that fellow Democrats hadn’t put forward their suggestions and that “none of the other council members had approached me (regarding) serving on this commission.”

Although Miklave and Coffey no longer serve on the council, at least one current council member believes the appointment process needs work.

“Because most of the appointments took place in the beginning (of the 2007-09 council term), there was no process set up where council members received notification of potential appointments and their credentials. We were just given names,” said Amanda M. Brown, a Democrat elected to an at-large council seat last November. “We need at least a month’s time to review the names, the quality of the candidates, and look at the commissions or boards that they’re being appointed to, to make sure we have the best qualified people to do the job.”

Amanda Brown is wrong to say that most of the appointments take place at the beginning of the council term. A quick scan of the boards and commissions will reveal terms, expiration dates that fall throughout the year. A council member could figure out what appointments would be coming up in their term with ease. As for the qualifications, the council members do get resumes in their packets. So a process exists there. The larger and more pertinent issue is that the talent pool outside of the political process is not being tapped.

source: The Hour, Appointment process runs smoothly — almost, April 21, 2008