Councilmember Bruce Harrell

Citizen Website and technology strategy will solicit feedback from public
to help shape and enhance public policy.

SEATTLE — Councilmember Bruce Harrell has evaluated the process and method in which the citizens of Seattle communicate their opinions to the Seattle City Council and how citizens receive legislative information regarding key issues. Earlier this year, he announced as part of his work plan a key initiative to improve Citizen Engagement through Technology. After communicating with constituents on major issues through e-mail, community meetings, public hearings and telephone, Councilmember Harrell has concluded that the City has not prioritized a communication strategy or policy that captures and quantifies the majority of citizens who do not historically participate in public process. They are the “silent” majority.

Approximately 83% of Seattle residents use the Internet and have a computer at home and Seattle is one of the most wired cities in the United States. Costly advisory ballots are not the answer and our continued reliance on traditional polling strategies and archaic note taking are outdated and inexact. “Listening and leading are not mutually exclusive. We value public process in order to gain input. Most of the input usually comes from listening to a limited number of committed citizens, community activists, special interest groups and professional lobbyists. Listening is a science and the technology exists that can significantly broaden our city’s outreach capability and quantify the opinions of our citizenry. If we prioritize this policy, it will dramatically change how we serve our public.”

While direct or face-to-face communications are extremely useful, it does not provide the Council with a scientific, real-time quantification of its citizen’s opinions. Most citizens do not testify at public hearings or communicate directly with Council members. Councilmember Harrell is concerned about having their voice excluded from the process, particularly when laws, policies or decisions appear intrusive, unnecessary or unfair to its citizens. Smart policy decisions are based on the interests of the entire public weighed against special interest or advocacy groups. The goal is to understand the views of most citizens, which appear to be the missing link in this process. Citizen engagement through technology will make this data readily available.

With the available web technology, Councilmember Harrell will call for the implementation of an online gateway incorporated with the current Seattle.Gov website that allows every citizen the opportunity to provide their input in a structured, electronic polling format. Through a Citizen Engagement Portal, citizens will also have the option to receive legislative notices and information that may affect their neighborhood, job or interest. Ideally, the City’s customer service system will be maximized by providing a visual search engine with a tagging system that currently exists on most online community sites. This will assist the public in finding answers to non-emergency matters such as pedestrian safety information, bicycle/automobile road-sharing rules and development projects in their area.

A comprehensive report of Councilmember Harrell’s evaluation to maximize citizen communications should be available in the next few weeks. The report will also address the fact that a small percentage of citizens still do not use a computer or the Internet. “Given Seattle’s unique position in technology, software development and innovative thinking, we should continue to be at the forefront in how municipalities use technology to understand its citizens, disseminate information and form public policy. Our communication strategies and technology policies should reflect our commitment to listen to our citizens.”

###

As Chair of the Seattle City Council’s Energy and Technology Committee, it is my job to make recommendations on policy and legislative matters regarding your largest public utility – Seattle City Light. My role includes reviewing its finances, rates, conservation policies and strategic plan. However, every four years I assume the role of “Board Chair” to examine whether the leader should keep his or her job or, in the alternative, whether new leadership is needed. That was the case four years ago when City Light Superintendent Gary Zarker was not confirmed.

How do you evaluate a CEO? Rate payers care about competitive and predictable rates. Customers care about customer service. Employees care about morale, trust and fairness in their workplace. Union members care about jobs for their members. Citizen advisors are concerned about the stability, predictability and condition of the utility’s aging network. Conservationists are concerned about City Light’s efforts to use new and renewable forms of energy and commitment toward sustainability. A strong evaluation considers all of these factors.

Personally, I was not looking for acceptable leadership or simple “competence.” I want remarkable leadership that understands what it takes to steer City Light back to its rightful place as one of the top public utilities in the nation. I believe that Superintendent Carrasco has set the wheels in motion to achieve that. The rates have remained competitive and stable, customer service has vastly improved, and progress is being made on an accelerated conservation plan that will account for 36% of new resources by 2020. Despite these achievements, City Light has issues that still require attention.

There are a small number of employees who oppose reconfirmation based on their personal experiences with Superintendent Carrasco and who criticize him for his style of management and lack of an effective internal communication plan. City Light is a department that employs over 1,700 people, with some employees suffering from poor morale. Superintendent Carrasco assumed leadership of City Light during a tumultuous period and hit the ground running by implementing organizational change and hiring a new management team primarily from outside City Light. This perpetuated a morale problem because the intent of the change may not have been effectively communicated to employees.

I want to see morale boosted. I want to see passion in the workplace. Passion is created when people are empowered to take ownership of their positions by making decisions based on their area of expertise. Passion is created when people believe that their institutional knowledge gives them the power to make decisions and produce solutions. Passion is created when lines of communication are clear. Morale is an attitude that can be achieved and it has a direct impact on the external activities of the utility. I have already stated that customer service has improved, but I believe that it will improve even more as the morale of employees improves. The City Light employee poll of 2007, and a poll conducted by my office showed that morale and poor internal communications are indeed an issue. I will not turn my back on the people that make this utility great. I have heard their voices and I am suggesting that City Light conduct an employee poll in July of 2009 that measures morale and internal communications. If by that time the morale and communication problem is not resolved, I will work with City Light leadership to develop a plan that addresses the issue.

Nevertheless, Superintendent Carrasco should be commended for remarkable leadership. The utility’s finances are solid, its conservation plan is being effectively developed, its risk management plan is close to finalization, and an Integrated Resource Plan using accelerated conservation, wind and geothermal resources will be complete and comply with state code by September.

We will have strong leadership, the citizens of Seattle and the employees of City Light deserve nothing less.

On Wednesday, June 18, 2008, Councilmember Harrell, chair of the Energy and Technology Committee will disclose his recommendation of whether or not to reconfirm Seattle City Light Superintendent Jorge Carrasco. The meeting begins at 2:00 p.m. in Council Chambers at City Hall. There will be a public comment session at the beginning of the meeting and the public is welcome to attend.

Councilmember Harrell began the reconfirmation process in the middle of February and has been very thorough in gathering information and establishing a process by which key department heads should be measured. There have been several “information gathering sessions” with City Light employees and ratepayers, as well as a May 13, 2008, public comment session in Council Chambers. He established a voluntary team of facilitators to assist in the process, oversaw City Light employee polling, and kept a log of all feedback, whether positive or negative. His work also included a review of Council recommendations to City Light within the last four years. All of the interaction with employees and ratepayers has played an important role in the development of Councilmember Harrell’s recommendation, which will be disclosed at the June 18th meeting.

After the recommendation passes out of the Energy and Technology Committee, it will go before the Full Council for a vote on Monday, June 23, 2008.

A representative from City Light is scheduled to present their proposed Risk Management Plan at an Energy and Technology Meeting in the near future. The Risk Management Plan is necessary because “City Light faces significant uncertainty regarding both the quantity of power available to the utility and the range of prices prevailing in the wholesale power market.”

In a typical year the supply of power inherent to City Light exceeds the demand of its customers, creating a surplus. This surplus power is then sold in the wholesale power market. The revenue generated by selling is “used to offset costs that would otherwise be borne by City Light’s retail rate payers.” City Light can sell its surplus power in two different manners. One is that they sell the power in the “spot market” as the power makes itself available, or it can sell the power in the “forward market” for delivery in the future. Both methods of selling involve risk.

If City Light chooses to sell the surplus in the spot market, it exposes the utility to the possibility of selling at a low rate “because the wholesale market is flush with power.” Selling projected surplus in the forward market reduces this risk, but then City Light is presented with the possibility of being forced to purchase power at higher prices “in order to meet those forward commitments (as well as retail demand) in the event actual supplies” are significantly less than estimated.

On May 13th Councilmember Harrell held a public comment session in respect to the proposed reconfirmation of Seattle City Light Superintendent Carrasco. Councilmember Harrell was joined by Councilmembers Richard Conlin, Jean Godden, Sally Clark, Richard McIver, and Tim Burgess. Employees, rate payers and concerned citizens attended the meeting with seventeen of them supplying meaningful testimony.

Councilmember Harrell started the session by encouraging all in attendance to testify and that people should make him aware of any concerns of retaliation resulting from critical comments because there are laws in place to deal with that issue, and he will continue to be a strong advocate for employee rights.

A significant majority of the people testifying were in favor of reconfirming. However, there were a few members who were opposed to the reconfirmation based on their personal observations.

The audience was filled with business leaders, union members, employees and members from the utility industry, all of whom cited various opinions. Many supported Carrasco for his efforts regarding improved customer service and for the type of visionary thinking and decisive leadership necessary to drive high performance. A small number of employees cited their criticisms of his leadership which includes his use of outside contractors and consultants and his personal style of leadership relative to, in their opinion, more effective styles based on their years of employment experience at City Light. Councilmember Harrell is continuing his extensive outreach in order to provide City Council with the necessary tools to make a full evaluation of Superintendent Carrasco.

The reconfirmation process continues on this week with Councilmember Harrell making trips out to City Light’s North and South Service Centers to engage employees at those facilities.

Council Bill 116194 was passed by the Energy and Technology Committee on May 7th, and by Full Council on May 12th. This is a bill that authorizes City Light to execute three agreements to provide for the transmission of power from the Summer Falls and Main Canal Hydroelectric Projects to the City of Seattle. This bill replaces an expired transmission agreement with the Avista Corporation for the transmission of power from the Summer Falls and Main Canal Hydroelectric Projects.

The agreements employ the services of both Avista and Public Utility District #2 of Grant County and will provide an efficient and cost-effective alternative to either interconnecting with the Bonneville Power Administration grid or continuing service under Avista’s previous contract. The execution of these contracts will result in a net savings of $46,100 in 2008.

A range of transmission options were considered by City Light. One option, a $28 million transmission contract with Avista was considerably more expensive, where an option of a $10.5 million proposal for the City to construct new facilities was less expensive. The proposed contracts are $11.3 million in net present value terms. Although the build option is marginally better on a straight present value basis, it exposes City Light to the cost risk and regulatory risk associated with building new transmission facilities. The contract option also resolves the dispute with the Grand Coulee Projects Hydroelectric Authority and results in a more efficient use of the region’s existing transmission facilities.