No algorithms. No content filters. No A.I. — Honest and insightful analysis from Richmond, VA.
It would not be overly dramatic to say that Richmond is at a very propitious moment concerning the city’s trajectory. It could continue down the bungled path of inefficient delivery of basic services, unaccountable leadership, and denial that anything was wrong, which is more or less what became the norm in recent years.
Alternatively, we could find ourselves on a path to restoring faith and even the simple belief that City Hall can tie its shoes and function like a normal municipality. Like a city that actually serves residents by spending money wisely, restoring accountability, helping those in need, providing basic services that make residents’ lives a little easier each week and being not just transparent, but honest with the people who live here and our neighbors.
That path might be determined next week when Mayor Avula announces his nominee to be Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) that will be considered and voted on by Council after a national search fill the position. It is not only a big moment for Avula, but also one for Council, which is given the power in the City Charter to approve a good hire or reject a bad one. The last time the city found itself at this fork in the road, Council chose to follow a political path. It voted 8-1 in 2020 to approve Lincoln Saunders to be Interim-CAO (made permanent the following year) even though he had no municipal administrative experience and was chosen purely for political reasons — he was Mayor Stoney’s best friend. There was no national search and there was no consideration that the City Charter says, the CAO “shall be chosen solely on the basis of his/her executive and administrative qualifications, with special reference to his/her actual experience in or knowledge of accepted practice with respect to the duties of his/her office.”
At the time, Mayor Stoney said chemistry and loyalty to him were more important than finding the most qualified person to manage more than 4,000 employees, a $1 billion general fund budget, and provide services and assistance to those who need it. He said, “Having someone you know and trust who has already demonstrated the ability to do the most important job in the city under the most difficult circumstances is not a drawback. It’s a strength. This is what I’ve learned after a term under my belt. Chemistry and loyalty matters.”
When Council elevated Saunders, Michael Paul Williams unloaded on the decision and pointed out that no one with a”similar dearth of experience” would ever be considered for the job. He was as prescient as Nostradamus in foreseeing the outcome of such a choice: “City Hall staffers are aware of Saunders’ close relationship with the mayor. Subordinates might view Saunders as Stoney’s “yes man” or be disinclined to push back against the inexperienced CAO for fear of retaliation.
Stoney is flexing his muscle as a strong mayor in exercising his prerogative to appoint a CAO. With 3½ years left in his second term, he’s in a hurry to enact an agenda. He says Saunders is the best man to carry it out.
But if Saunders is as good as advertised, why not insert him in a nationwide competition for the job? That exercise might turn up a sharp and seasoned outsider with fresh ideas for Richmond — or sharpen the interim CAO’s skills and further prove his mettle. To suggest, as Stoney has, that Richmond cannot do better than a relative novice defies credulity and reduces the top administrative post in our city of 227,000 to an entry-level job.”
The breakdown of City Hall has many fits and starts and sources over many decades, but the most recent implosions caused by ineptitude and inexperience can be traced directly to making everything City Hall solely about politics and not about looking after the people that live in it. When Saunders was appointed, it was obvious to every one in city government from top to bottom that the close relationship with the Mayor who was seeking higher office meant no one wanted to push back or deliver bad news.
It has not been a secret that people who spoke up about issues that needed to be addressed were not seen as trying to improve operations or their department, but instead seen as causing trouble for the boss in the form of bad press; that makes it
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to RVA 5x5 to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.