Slapped
with an un-
flattering evaluation of the manner in which it handles and disseminates
“public information,” the city has been advised to trim down and streamline
their operations.
A recent analysis of the Public Information Office (PIO) from Laurey Peat +
Associates, a Dallas-based public relations firm hired last August to evaluate
the current structure, found that the city’s public information efforts are a
confused mess, with community education and marketing thrown in here and there.
The report speaks to the costliness of the status quo and is pretty frank, in
that respect. It recommends that mission statements and job responsibilities be
streamlined across the board within a broader “Citywide Communication Plan.”
Graphics should be standardized to present a unified city government, and the
city should avoid the proliferation of “would-be graphic artists” within each
department. The study also mentions that the boundaries and separation between
community education, marketing, and public information should be more clearly
defined but, unfortunately, hardly touches on the subject in any detail.
The report’s chief recommendation is to cut nine positions in various public
information offices around the city. Individual departments would retain their
expert liaisons, but forfeit some staff and rely on the central PIO for more
oversight, and staff support. Both the fire department and the central office
could also pick up an employee later, but only with council approval at budget
time.
In a January 3 memorandum to the city council, City Manager Jesus Garza says
he believes that “many of the recommendations should be implemented and allow
us to move in the right direction.” He also notes that he began reductions last
year by cutting five PIO positions for a savings of almost $200,000.
Speaking to the issue of the nine additional cuts, acting Public Information
Officer Michele Middlebrook-Gonzalez says, “Positions are going to be phased
out. Nobody is getting a pink slip… We need to streamline our operations.
We’re in a time now where we’re doing more with less. What we wanted to do was
ensure we are giving the customer what they need.”
The report also emphasizes
the need for a stronger central authority in the city manager’s office. That
could be helped along, they say, with the hiring of a permanent Director of
Communications, a spot left empty by the departure of Ed Clark last year. They
warn that “…the absence of a Director of Communications in the central PI
Office may make our recommendations difficult to implement.”
Middlebrook-Gonzalez will be a candidate for the job, which she says has
already been posted.
Apparently, Garza is going along with the report’s recommendations with regard
to personnel cuts, and will likely want the central office to call the
shots on what’s given out to the public, but he’s balking on giving the central
office absolute power over all other public information departments. The hybrid
system is the best approach for now, he says.
The city apparently went from a centralized system to the current system, in
which all departments have their own public information officers, back in the
1980s, because of a perceived bottleneck effect.
The consultants compare Austin with Phoenix, Arizona, and subsequently
conclude that “efficient and proactive [PIO] activities have been demonstrated
in numerous locations… such as the City of Phoenix.” They find that without a
unified central authority, public relations is bound to be reactive and
unfocused, and propose a system modeled some-what after the centralized system
in Phoenix.
Garza’s not the only one balking at the study’s recommendation to centralize.
The criticisms and suggestions within the report have caused unrest (or perhaps
nervousness) among some PI officers in other departments like the Electric
Utility. According to an Inter-Office Memorandum obtained by the
Chronicle, at least one employee has expressed reservations about the
report’s findings. Elaine Herrmann, a public information specialist with the
Electric Utility’s community relations office, outlined her concerns in writing
to Middlebrook-Gonzalez and Garza.
Herrmann wrote that she believes the study to be just as reactive as the PIOs
were said to be. She questioned the wisdom of using Phoenix as a benchmark for
Austin’s success, and wondered why the comparison doesn’t adequately take into
account the city’s independently owned utility. “If we are interested in
cost-cutting, as we say we are, we need to look at the comprehensive picture in
an orderly fashion…”
She also asks why Phoenix was defined as “success,” and why Austin wasn’t
looking inward to Austin for what it “needs.” “In short, if this was a research
paper I turned in for a class, I would probably flunk,” she concludes.
“To say it was based solely on a comparison with Phoenix is an inaccurate
summation,” Middlebrook-Gonzalez responded in an interview. And Cathy Kirwin,
who heads up Administration and Community Relations for the Electric Utility,
made it clear that Herrmann was speaking for herself and did not represent the
Electric Utility.
Perhaps some of the perceived failings of the study may have been caused by
the very problems the consultants point out. Laurey Peat + Associates contend
that they lacked data that was supposed to have been provided by the city. As
the reports states, “These recommendations are being made with the
understanding that the data deficiencies that were noted in the report limited
our investigation and final evaluation, as did the lack of an efficiency
report, which was to have been provided by the city. Our recommendations should
be accepted in light of this lack of data.”
One particularly glaring lack in the study is a discussion of the sometimes vague line between public
information/community education, and city marketing. Certainly the city has
products to market and sell, like the utilities’ services, for instance, or
maybe even caps and T-shirts, but there’s a difference between marketing a
product for a customer of the city’s utilities, and marketing a bond issue up
for public vote. For instance, remember 1993’s Bergstrom Airport bond issue
advertising fiasco? The city hired the Tate/Austin PR firm to “educate” voters
on the $400 million bond proposal to move the airport from Robert Mueller in
order to build a newer, bigger model at Bergstrom Air Force Base. What started
as “public information” and “community education” quickly turned into a
pro-bond TV and mailout blitz. The city was forced by the city legal department
to pull the ads and mailouts after several complaints from the public about how
their city dollars were being spent. And last fall, after the city council was
forced by public pressure to put $10 million in bonds for a minor league
baseball stadium up for a public vote, then-Parks Department Director Mike
Heitz went on what could only be described as a PR tour around Austin’s media
offices to promote the passage of the bonds and the project. Heitz now claims
to have brought both sides of the issue to all the meetings, but in a meeting
with the Chronicle editors, Heitz brought only stadium supporters, and
even promoted his own idea to include a whitewater kayaking park in the plans.
At around the same time, in what was perhaps a well-intentioned attempt to
smooth over a troubling situation, Middlebrook-Gonzalez appeared to turn
political advocate when she handled questions from the press concerning
Councilmember Eric Mitchell’s financial gains from city contracts, because
Mitchell pitched a media black-out. The Peat report notes that “a centralized
PIO provides support for the Mayor, the City Council and those within their own
PIO staff.” But Middlebrook-Gonzalez denies that her office acts as a buffer.
“We do not speak for the mayor and council offices, we assist them. We do that
across the board, but we do not speak for their offices.”
Of course, when your city officials announce that your city is going to change
how it communicates and disseminates information to the media, and by extension
to the public, it’s of great interest to the news media. And therefore, the
public. Yes, it will be nice to have a more centralized and unified city
government information service, but perhaps more important is the issue of a
clear separation between an objective government that serves the people, and a
city government which has products to sell. The study doesn’t go far enough in
that respect, barely touching on city marketing issues at all, and certainly
not acknowledging the mistakes of the past, which makes it hard to change the
future. n
This article appears in February 9 • 1996 and February 9 • 1996 (Cover).