By Shereen Siewert | Wausau Pilot & Review
A proposal to add a city communications officer to the payroll in Wausau saw sharp criticism Monday by members of the Human Resources committee, who voted down the proposal by a 4-1 margin.
As Wausau Pilot & Review first reported last week, a proposal by Mayor Katie Rosenberg would add a member of the staff to send “a centralized message to outside entities” and address communication challenges in Wausau’s government. But the measure saw serious pushback and some confusion. Dist. 9 Alder Dawn Herbst, for example, asked for clarification on how a communications officer would differ from a city administrator.
Human Resources Director James Henderson explained that one position has nothing to do with the other. A city administrator is a role in a specific form of government, where the administrator is the chief officer of the municipality. A communications director or officer communicates with the public and has nothing to do with how the city is run, he said.
Dist. 2 Alder Michael Martens said the city should consider some consistency, and that this position could be beneficial in a crisis communication situation. But that, he said, seemed to be missing from the essential duties or capabilities in the job description as presented.
Dist. 3 Alder Tom Kilian said some of the concerns about communication could be addressed by current staff. One is the way the city responds to open records requests, he said. Another is to release crucial information in Hmong or Spanish in neighborhoods with high linguistic isolation rates, which he has requested on numerous occasions during his tenure.
“If the goal is to get facts to the public…there is some low-hanging fruit we could address now,” he said.
He pointed to a recent request for signage in Riverside Park advised by state health officials to communicate with the public about toxic soil, a request that has not been fulfilled despite support from the Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources and its public health implications.
Dist. 10 Alder Lou Larson, who is not on the HR committee but spoke during the public comment portion of the meeting, said he would support hiring a city administrator but not this position. He said some department heads have “gone rogue,” with too many mixed messages being sent to the public.
Kilian said that situation could be addressed now with stronger supervisory oversight from the mayor’s office. That oversight could ensure department heads “serve the people and not their own interests, which at times do not coincide with facts,” a reference to controversies within the Public Works Department’s reaction to environmental issues in a range of areas.
Becky McElhaney, City Council president and Dist. 6 Alder, said the proposal generated a “ton of response, all negative,” from residents who do not see how this position would positively affect their lives. Her constituents are most worried about their finances and how they will pay their water bills, which have risen substantially, she said. And a tax increase would create an even bigger burden.”People in my district have publicly stated how much anxiety there is regarding how they’re going to make it day to day,” McElhaney said. “It may not be fair, but they do not see a value in this position on how it helps their life.”
Doug Diny, who represents Dist. 4 and is not on the HR committee, told Wausau Pilot & Review he doesn’t think communication is the core problem the city is grappling with.“How will this position reduce organizational complexity?” Diny asked. “How will a new communications officer contribute to filling more potholes? Fix the PFAs problem, reduce crime or solve homelessness? We should elevate problem solving over messaging.” I don’t think an urgent case was made for justifying a mid-year budget modification. Are there specific examples of problems that would have had a different outcome but for the Communications Officer?”
A new website design is under development for the city that will improve the way residents find information and interact with officials. But that will require assistance in communication, officials said.
Development Director Liz Brodek encouraged the committee to approve the position to keep residents well-informed about what’s happening in Wausau. She said having someone help explain what is going on with crucial projects would be welcome assistance. Department heads are specialists in their areas of expertise, not in communication, said Brodek, a former executive director of Wausau’s River District.
But Brodek’s comments prompted Kilian to suggest a more “surgical solution” to the city’s communication struggle. A great deal of communication breakdown in the past, including in past administrations, resulted in a crisis of public confidence regarding issues centering squarely on Economic Development, he said. That means there should be an “extra degree in caution” given Wausau’s past lack of transparency on such issues.
He also said from a communications and branding perspective, Wausau needs to be true to its own brand.
“We hear a lot about the cities we should aspire to be,” Kilian said. “How about we aspire to be like Wausau?”
Martens said he sees the value in the position, which is something city leaders should continue to talk about, looking to other communities to see how such a position is working for them. He encouraged not holding a vote and instead continuing the discussion moving forward.
But Kilian pressed for the vote, and said “if we aren’t going to vote on things because they’re going to be defeated or die…you’ll really need a communications specialist then.”
“It came to us for action, let’s take action and we can put our markers down on where we stand on this in this committee, and if the city wants to resurrect it so be it,” he said. “We deserve it for the public to take action.”
Gary Gisselman, who represents Dist. 5, said the community has concerns about budgets, about how how the city is spending its money and the priorities for council members. “For now…in the light of budgets, in the light of community response, I don’t think I could support this motion.”
Kiian, Herbst, McElhaney and Gisselman voted against, with Martens casting the sole vote to approve.
The issue could be resurrected as part of the 2024 budget discussion.
