What We Have Here Is A Failure To Communicate

Mayor Stewart took time out after his "open office hours" this month to write a missive to local blogger Frank Smith thanking citizens for their ideas and offers of help and to again knock the Common Council -- the legislative body that he is charter-mandated to work with in running the city.

"I thank the citizens for keeping me engaged in this process and continually making it so rewarding in spite of the negativity I have to deal with twice a month from the Common Council," stated Stewart on the blog that now includes daily posts from the right-wing press and extremists trashing President Obama.

Stewart's complaint betrays his own responsibility and actions in contributing to the frosty relationship between the Democratic-controlled Council and the GOP Mayor. That frostiness continues during this difficult budget process as noted by Don Stacom in a June 10th Courant story, "Divided government is an extra obstacle for New Britain to overcome."

It's been a longstanding tradition at City Hall that the Mayor and Council leaders meet ahead of Council meetings to discuss the issues whether they're in agreement or not. That communication is important in a mayor-council form of government where both branches wield considerable power and both need each other to move the city forward.

According to Council leaders, however, Stewart has chosen to cancel or not show up for the vast majority of these "standing" leadership meetings. There are apparently no "office hours" on his calendar to engage in a dialogue that might serve to promote bipartisan agreement.

The mayor bears a good deal of the responsibility for these important talks not happening. It would be a good question to ask in this election cycle: how many meetings were held in this term between the Mayor and Council leaders?

In not communicating more often with the Council, Stewart has also shown a propensity to keep public matters under wraps, trying to do the city's business in an arbitrary manner that ignores the public's right to know and makes consensus impossible. A good example of this is the secrecy engaged in by the Stewart administration on downtown development discussions that led to a ruling against the Mayor in this term for violating the open meeting law. Stewart also resisted sharing information on the badly botched Fairview cemetery fence replacement project where the contractor was paid without finishing the job.

The Mayor's office is also notorious for putting a lid on City Hall departments when public information is sought by councillors or citizens.

Some observers may say that Stewart has to be on guard and keep his cards close to his vest all the time because of the dominance of Democrats (13 to 2) on the Council. That assumes, however, there is not an ounce of good will from Democrats and that the partisan divide will never be bridged. But voters, who've opted for divided government in recent elections, want and expect their elected officials to end the campaign the day after the election and govern without partisan sniping at every turn.

Politically, the Mayor has benefited from a "me against them" strategy; he may feel that partisanship is the winning strategy, even if that strategy is not always a good way to govern.

Communication is a two way street. What we have here is a failure to communicate on Stewart's part that is detrimental to his leadership and the city's business.