When controversy hits in Utah Valley, municipal leaders often hear a singular message from affected residents -- we were not given important information when we needed it.
Razing ancient cedars or building a Wal-Mart feet from homes in Cedar Hills, expanding a sewer lagoon or approving huge housing developments in Santaquin, proposing itinerate housing in Payson, looking to quadruple impact fees or OK a gravel pit in Saratoga Springs, building a freeway in Lehi or a charter school on a residential street in Alpine, local residents have repeatedly expressed frustration with city employees and elected leaders who are supposed to protect their interests.
Because residents in cities across Utah Valley have decried for years the way cities communicate information that affects their lives, the Daily Herald recently collected -- or in some cases, attempted to collect -- meeting agendas and asked two experts to judge them, assigning each a letter grade based on how well cities had communicated to the public the business of the community.
To residents, the consequences of local decisions are real, and sometimes devastating. Eagle Mountain officials admitted recently that had they acted earlier, it would not have been necessary to condemn the front yards of four residents to build a 90-foot-tall power line. But that was little comfort to residents who wept in protest, or to Cedar Hills homeowners who will find themselves living feet from a Wal-Mart when construction begins in the spring, all of whom told city leaders they were not given information about the projects early enough.
Public information on the activities of planning commissions and city councils varies widely across Utah Valley. Some cities provide agendas with extremely minimal information, stating only that "recreation" or undefined jargon terms such as "CDBG" will be discussed, as a recent agenda in Goshen stated, or simply "airport loan" or "center for the arts" listed on a recent Provo agenda. Such opaqueness makes it difficult for residents to know not only how elected officials are spending taxpayer money, but also how city actions may affect residents.
Other cities are much more transparent. Eagle Mountain and Orem both regularly provide agendas reaching 10 pages or more, containing detailed explanations making it easier for residents to know at a glance where money is being spent and on-the-ground consequences of city actions. Most, if not all, cities provide extremely detailed packets of information -- sometimes numbering 100 pages or more -- regarding the agendas to their city leaders, but have sometimes charged the public and media fees to get the same information. Other cities post these packets on their Web sites for free public access.
Receiving an A grade from both experts who provided grades to the Daily Herald for this report, Orem and Eagle Mountain were the only cities to receive perfect scores.
"It was always very important for me to think of myself as a resident reading the agenda and provide more information than less," said Gina Peterson, who wrote Eagle Mountain's agenda and has since become the city recorder for Highland.
"Woot!" wrote Orem city recorder Donna Weaver in an e-mail upon hearing the city's grades, noting that "woot" is "like saying hurray."
"It is gratifying that after years of receiving input from residents and trying to implement their suggestions that our current process is well received," she said, noting Orem strives to provide information "as early as possible before each meeting so that residents have time to research issues they may wish to speak about."
Grades were given by Jeff Hunt, a Freedom of Information Act attorney, and Joel Campbell, BYU assistant professor of communications and past president of the National Freedom of Information Coalition.
Campbell said he gave perfect grades to agendas "written in plain English that residents could understand. ... While there are certain legal requirements required on agendas, city officials ought to remember most citizens don't understand the bureaucratese that government officials work in. If they want to involve citizens in the democratic process, they need to translate the jargon, the acronyms and the obtuse references."
Agendas are governed by the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act, which requires cities to "provide reasonable specificity to notify the public as to the topics to be considered at the meeting." The law also requires that cities cite one of seven allowed exemptions if they move into closed session, where the public is not allowed, Campbell said. Any member of the public who feels their rights regarding an agenda were not met can sue.
A-minus grades went to agendas that "slipped into bureaucratese. Many of the agenda items were indiscernible without calling or getting more information."
In the B-minus category, "agendas started to slip into the 'stealth agenda' category" by not giving "enough background to help build context or understanding about the issue," he said, while agendas given C and D grades "were very brief and provided no background or context."
Hunt praised Provo, Orem and Eagle Mountain for providing "excellent agendas -- full of information and background on the agenda items. That kind of detail allows the public to fully understand what items are up for discussion and action.
"The purpose of the Open Meetings Act is to ensure that the public's business is conducted openly and publicly. Informative agendas serve that purpose by letting the public know what items are up for discussion and action so residents may attend, observe and provide input.
"Certainly there is room for improvement on some agendas."
Because they each earned one D grade, Woodland Hills and Goshen had the lowest scores in the county.
"We obviously like the higher grade but more importantly we want to learn how to improve," said Woodland Hills Mayor Toby Harding, who called the grades useful and timely.
"Our agendas are admittedly brief," he said. "However, our approach seems to have fit the needs of our small city. ... Nevertheless, with the growth of our community ... a more informative agenda is one of the approaches we will consider."
Eleven cities received at least one C grade.
When asked for comments on their grades and their goals for communicating with residents, 16 cities did not respond, including Alpine, American Fork, Cedar Fort, Elk Ridge, Genola, Goshen, Lehi, Payson, Pleasant Grove, Provo, Salem, Santaquin, Saratoga Springs, Spanish Fork, Springville and Vineyard.
Highland received a B+ from Hunt and a B- from Campbell, grades which city administrator Barry Edwards initially protested.
"To grade Highland's agenda based solely on the title page does a disservice to the effort and work put into making our agendas the most complete in the county," he said.
The city later said the title page is in fact the only document made available to the public, and contained no information on how to get further information online. Peterson said the city is now working to change that, and may expand agendas to make them more informative.
"You will probably see over the coming year some changes to not only the agenda, but the avenues in which the City Council may be contacted prior to meetings," Peterson said.
Mapleton received a B from Hunt and a B from Campbell, grades city administrator Bob Bradshaw said "fairly reflect and assess our agenda information. ... The city's goal is to be as open as possible with all information on the agendas without turning them into several lengthy pages -- indeed, we include agendas and minutes on the city's Web page as quickly as we can. ... There is still room for improvement."
Lindon was given an A- by both Hunt and Campbell.
"We are heartened by the grade received by Lindon," said Ott Dameron, Lindon city administrator. "Of course, there is always room for improvement, but an A- was a very good grade when I was in school."
Lindon keeps its agendas "succinct" because "some people are intimidated by an extremely long agenda which could take an inordinate amount of time to absorb, not to mention the extra trees we would destroy in the process," he said, noting the city is now reviewing its policy.
Cedar Hills received a C from Hunt and a B from Campbell, and city manager Konrad Hildebrandt took issue with their expertise, saying "the reality should be what a regular resident thinks ... or really if he/she really cares tremendously. I want to know if Mr. Campbell or Mr. Hunt know who their council representatives are and what is on this week's agenda. My guess is that they don't know."
Cedar Hills has "indeed already been discussing this very issue" and is planning changes to "make a real difference for residents, including posting audio recordings of meetings to the city's Web site and to post electronic information packets two days before any meeting.
"Our city believes in being transparent and erring on the side of 'overcommunication' if possible. We'd like to see more residents being informed and getting involved."
• Caleb Warnock can be reached at 443-3263 or cwarnock@heraldextra.com.
Utah County Report Card A city by city comparison of graded city agendas, as given by Jeff Hunt, a Freedom of Information Act attorney, and Joel Campbell, BYU assistant professor of communications and past president of the National Freedom of Information Coalition. ALPINE Hunt: B- Campbell: C AMERICAN FORK Hunt: A Campbell: A- CEDAR FORT: Did not provide agenda CEDAR HILLS Hunt: C Campbell: B EAGLE MOUNTAIN Hunt: A Campbell: A ELK RIDGE Hunt: B- Campbell: C GENOLA Hunt: C Campbell: C- GOSHEN Hunt: C Campbell: D HIGHLAND Hunt: B+ Campbell: B- LEHI Hunt: B Campbell: A- LINDON Hunt: A- Campbell: A- MAPLETON Hunt: B Campbell: B OREM Hunt: A Campbell: A PAYSON Hunt: B- Campbell: C PLEASANT GROVE Hunt: A- Campbell: C+ PROVO Hunt: A Campbell: A- (Council agenda); C (study agenda) SALEM Hunt: B Campbell: C SANTAQUIN: Did not provide agenda SARATOGA SPRINGS Hunt: B Campbell: C SPANISH FORK Hunt: B- Campbell: C SPRINGVILLE Hunt: B+ Campbell: B- VINEYARD Hunt: B+ Campbell: A- WOODLAND HILLS Hunt: B- Campbell: D | 
Posts
