CONLEY COMMENTARY (WSAU) – This is an important lesson about what happens when local government is flush with cash. They spend more.
Wausau, knowing it was about to receive a 15% increase in state aid, immediately proposed hiring a city communications director. We’d never had one before. The actual increase is closer to 20%.
The salary for the new position was spectacularly high, between $55,000 and $80,000 a year. I assure you that there are no reporters – the people this person would be communicating with – who make anywhere near that salary. Assuming the mayor didn’t have a personal friend in mind, members of the working press would have been falling over themselves to apply for the plum job at city hall.
The idea for this position comes from the PFAS issue in Wausau. Some members of the city council overreacted, calling for the city to truck in palates of bottled water and filtration pitchers. And then there was a different opinion, from a city staff member, Eric Lindman. The Public Works Director said the city’s water is safe to drink; he drinks it; his family drinks it.
One of the jobs of the proposed Communications Director is to make sure the city speaks with one voice. In the PFAS case, the public might not ever have known that someone whose job it is to oversee the city’s public works infrastructure had a different opinion than elected officials, who have no particular expertise on water quality. The “messaging” from the city would have been to whip the public into a frenzy.
Something is lost if reporters simply can’t interview city staff members on the day’s issues. The policy that would have come from hiring a Communications Director is that staff does not speak directly to the press. There would be another layer, a gatekeeper, between Wausau residents and their local leaders. That’s not in the public interest.
This also leads to an interesting hypothetical: Suppose a city council member wants to run for mayor. They take opposing positions to the current mayor. Whom does the Communications Director work for? Are they a sword to be wielded to shut down dissent? The bottom line is this: the city doesn’t need an expensive mouthpiece. People who hold elected office or work for the city should be able to speak for themselves.
The city’s Human Resources Committee was correct to turn down this proposal.
Chris Conley
Comments