With the sudden announcement of City Manager Greg Jones' resignation after a scant 19 months on the job, it is time for Chico to reconsider its form of government. Not solely because it is going to be devilishly difficult to recruit a new chief executive officer for the city, but also to address the problems that have led to this difficulty in the first place.

Not to discount any of Jones' cited reasons for leaving; his family situation does indeed sound as though he would be better off in the Bay Area. Still, it must have been frustrating trying to effect meaningful process improvements in a community that regards any change as a potentially fatal threat to All We Hold Dear. Any qualified candidate for the City Maager position who hopes to have a productive and rewarding career will almost certainly see Chico as a dead end opportunity.

A big part of the problem, in my view, has been the current form of government. The Council-Manager structure we have now is typically suitable for small towns. Citizens are elected to a council, where issues of budget and policy are determined, and a professional staff then executes these decisions in the day to day operations of the city. As Chico has grown, the problems facing it, particularly with respect to the budget and growth itself, have increased in complexity and consequence, whereas the particular expertise for synthesizing solutions has remained relatively static. Not that the members of the council aren't intelligent, well-intentioned, or diligent; only that they do not have specialized training and experience in urban planning, public administration, complex budgeting, or labor negotiations. They are increasingly dependent upon staff for advice and recommendations, yet remain obligated to their constituents, who also lack formal adminstrative discipline.

I believe it is time for the city of Chico to consider a transition to a Strong Mayor-Council form of government, and to district elections. In the Strong Mayor form, the mayor is an elected position, and is not a member of the council. He or she is the chief executive officer, responsible for submitting a budget to the council for consideration, and for appointing department directors. The Strong Mayor also has the power to veto legislation passed by the council, which may, with a supermajority, override the veto.

I believe that dilletante legislators, beholden to narrow special interests, have created this current situation. I believe that a popularly elected mayor, with the remit to shape and lead the civic authority, will be much more effective at both pursuing and implementing policy.

I also believe that councilmembers elected by district would eliminate a great deal of the polarization that currently afflicts the policy process today. I would like very much for downtown Chico to have explicit representation on the council, and I expect those in the Avenues and Barber neighborhoods would like their interests championed, as well. Certainly the other neighborhoods around the city have their own parochial interests that receive scant attention, and would benefit from district representation.

"There's no limit to what you can accomplish, if you don't care who gets the credit." This maxim has been famously, and not a little ironically, "credited" to a number of sources, from Presidents Harry Truman to Ronald Reagan, from General George Marshall to UCLA baskeball coach John Wooden, from feminist pioneer Florence Luscomb to aphorist Laing Burns, Jr.

There's a lot to be said for that. One of the things I find frustrating about Chico's contentious political environment is the degree to which polarized factions steadfastly refuse to consider the needs and concerns of their opponents. This is to a certain degree human nature, but something in the water here seems to amplify this lamentable propensity.

In my consulting practice, one of the techniques I use to get performance with high compression is "team-building". This is a term that is widely misunderstood, and frankly poorly practiced in the business world. Generally speaking, most "team-building" attempts are focused on existing functional clusters, such as the accounts payable department, or shipping and receiving. These are not "teams" in any meaningful sense. They are all engaged in a single function of the enterprise, and while many hands make light the work, the truth is that they are already united by a common purpose, hierarchical in form, and motivated by the same desirable outcomes. You can make them more effective, more efficient, more capable, but they are not a "team".

In my practice, I construct teams from cross-functional contributors. For example, a problem I routinely find in many firms is conflict between the Accounts Receivable department and the Sales organization. Sales reps don't want anyone contacting "their" customers; they want to control all aspects of the customer relationship. Accounts Receivable, however, wants to reduce Days Sales Outstanding, i.e., the average delinquency of all aged accounts, and contacts delinquent customers to encourage celerity in payment. Both departments are within their rights, certainly; sales reps are incented with commissions, accounting personel are incented with bonuses for reducing DSOs, and both of these activities are necessary for a healthy business. This adversarial relationship is further complicated by conflicts between Sales and Customer Service, Sales and Marketing, and Sales and Payroll. Seems like Sales just can't get along with anybody, but that's not really the problem.

The problem is that each department has its own parochial priorities, and in pursuing its performance objectives, sees the activities of the other departments as obstacles. This is further exacerbated by lack of communication, and reinforcing narratives within the individual departments.

My solution is to create new teams with shared performance objectives, drafting players from across different functions. If you create a collaborative unit including managers from A/R, Sales, Customer Service, and Payroll, and give them some key metrics to improve (DSOs, Customer Satisfaction Surveys, Point-of-Sale processing, etc.), and give them a shared bonus for achieving them, genuine teamwork results. Communication improves, and the shared knowledge from different disciplines produces greater results. It's not rocket surgery.

So I was greatly encouraged by the recent city council meeting that considered the recommendations of the consultants who conducted the March 2006 Downtown Parking and Access charrette. From many months, the Downtown Parking and Access Coalition (DPAC) has been studying these recommendations, and presented a critique to the council after the consultants and staff reports. Then a number of stakeholders gave public testimony, and with rare exception, appeared to be mostly in agreement about next steps. The was reflected in the 5-0 (with two disqualifieds) vote to refer the matter back to staff for action.

The action might have been better defined, candidly. Staff were directed to return in a couple of months with a plan to implement the more "feasible" recommendations, and to recommend a process for determining a definitive vision for the future of downtown as a whole. It might have been more useful to request staff to prioritize projects by urgency, cost-analyze and justify them, and set some delivery timeframes, but for a rookie mayor, Andy Holcombe's motion was a good first step in the right direction.

Observers of the downtown parking dispute may remember when DPAC held a public forum last October, that there was initially a great deal of hostility and stubbornness exhibited by what might be termed the two "sides" of the discussion. However, later in the evening, something of a brealthrough happened. It all began when some of the merchants spoke about how much they love the Saturday morning farmer's market, but that it was killing their business. Once it became clear that no one was trying to close the market, and that they were willing to consider alternatives, so long as the principle issue, abundant parking for retail, could be addressed, it seemed like a cool breeze had arrived.

Last Tuesday night, while much of the testimony came from merchants seeking relief, and much of the testimony was passionate, it was not highly contentious. The lack of a unifying vision -- not just for retailers, but for all downtown stakeholders -- was properly recognized as the reason why propsed solutions heretofore have created so much free-floating animosity. This was illustrated by Mike Worley, who spoke first, and without hearing any of the other testimony, threw down the same old "we shall fight on the beaches" rhetoric we've all grown so weary of.

But the council was alert, recognized that there is indeed an opportunty not simply to address the parking deficit, but to establish a clear and compelling vision for the future of Chico's downtown.

Since then, I've had many conversations with folks from all sectors, not just businesses, about collaborating together to imagine a downtown that everyone can play a part in realizing. It doesn't have to be the merchants versus the farmers, the developers versus the environmentalists, or the townies versus the students. It can -- and should -- be a cultural commons that connects the city government, the academy, the non-profit and social services agencies, the arts community, and the commercial corridor with the residential areas flanking downtown, and with the city and region as a whole, respecting the rich historical legacy while encouraging investment in new resources. This mission exceeds the domain of the city council, the DCBA, DPAC, the university, or any other self-interested entity.

What is needed is a new model for synthesizing a destiny for the city center. In my conversations with folks across the political and economic spectrum, there is emerging a consensus around the idea of a Chico Downtown Neighborhood Association, that can embrace the needs and hopes of all the stakeholders of a vital downtown that integrates the civic, social, and economic dimensions of a healthy community, and to establish some first principles for moving forward.

I believe that once these seemingly disparate communities meet and discuss their respective aspirations for downtown, they'll find they have more in common than in conflict, and if that happens, anything is possible.

I've spent a few hours today analyzing absentee voter behavior over the past three elections. I've uncovered some interesting trends.

First off, election night totals include all the absentee ballots that were mailed in. In recent elections, they have comprised roughly 20% of each candidate's vote total on election night.

What is interesting are two factors I've found to be remarkably consistent. The first is that candidates that most would label "liberal" ultimately derive about 33% of their final vote total from absentees, whereas those most would label as "conservative" typically derive around 45% from absentees. The second factor is that the absentee ballots liberals receive are roughly 50% mailed in, with the remaining 50% submitted on election day. Conservative candidates receive roughly 35% of their absentee ballots by mail, with the balance turned in at the precinct polling stations.

The upshot is that while all candidates get a bump from the late absentees, conservatives have historically enjoyed a bigger bump.

Applying the math, I have calculated what the vote totals would have to be in order to sustain that trend. According to my projections, the final ranking for the Chico City Council will be Flynn, Sorensen, Gruendl, Herbert, Nickell, Dailey.

In the Supervisor race, the factors are less clear. In the last election Maureen Kirk stood for, her absentee total was only 25% of her final total. If her election night total was 20% absentee, her bump would be around 436 votes, or a total of 6089.

The last time Steve Bertagna stood for office, his absentee votes were 44.2 percent of his total. If he got a 20% mail-in absentee on Tuesday, and the trend remains valid, his bump should be over 2700. This could be problematic, inasmuch as there are only 2662 uncounted absentee ballots in the Third District. It's more likely that the county absentee voting trends are different from city precincts, but there's still a chance that Bertagna could ultimately prevail. He and Kirk are only about 250 votes apart, and with 2662 in play, there's a lot of room for movement. Unfortunately, there's no useful absentee data available on the clerk-recorder's website from the primary last June.

But I digress. If recent trends are sustainable, the ultimate outcome in the city council race could see Sorensen not only leapfrogging Nickell, but Gruendl as well. If this happens, Herbert comes within about 500 votes of third place. If his unexpectedly poor showing on election night was a result of a higher than usual late absentee vote, it could be very close indeed.

Wishful thinking? Perhaps. The old sayijng about lies, damned lies, and statistics may obtain here. But look on the bright side; if I'm totally off base, you can slag me silly when the official Statement of Vote is published. Check back after Turkey Day and we'll see.

It was asked in another forum if the Hooker Oak Alliance has a plan for the future. I can't speak for the entire organization, although I find myself increasingly in that role. But I feel confident my fellows would agree that we do.

I would qualify that by saying that there is a plan to develop a plan for the future. We've accomplished a great deal in the last year or so, and clearly there is much more to do going forward.

The good news is that the campaign for '08 begins today, and we have two years to make progress. We need to broaden our base of support, both in terms of wider perspective and in terms of financial contributions. We need a lot more $25 donors, for one thing, and I think we need to get more input on priorities from the tradesman, the merchant, and the other small business owners who are the backbone of our economy. We've presumed to represent their interests, and if we've failed, it is in not encouraging more involvement from them in both the ideological and economic domains.

But we have a strong, durable organization with committed people willing to roll up their sleeves and put in the hours to get things accomplished. We're learning how to conduct a political campaign OJT, and perhaps that's not the fastest or most efficient way to develop that expertise, but it's like picking up a cat by the tail; some lessons can only be learned in one way (but hopefully, only once). We got a lot of scratches on our arms last night, and I think we're substantially wiser than we were even 48 hours ago.

But regardless of how we approach seating policy makers in future elections, we will continue to contribute to the deliberation. We're going to continue to attend public meetings, speak up for our priorities, and challenge the council and the commissions to consider all Chico stakeholders when making critical decisions. We will make a difference, albeit a more incremental and less dramatic one than we might have with a new majority.

The future is determined by the people who show up. Clearly our colleagues in the opposition showed up last night. We will continue to do so, as well. However disappointed we may be at the final tally (and that is still a moving target), we expect to work with the new council, and we expect them to work with us. We are the citizens whose interests they are privileged to serve, and as we've learned over the years, the people who appear before the council and give testimony have a significant influence on the debate. We may be on the other side of the podium, but we will continue to be a voice for positive change in city government.

This has been one of the best local election seasons in recent memory. Despite some last-minute, uh, confusion about a mailer and a Mayor, the campaign rhetoric has been clean. Tough, yes, and pointedly focused on issues, which is as it should be.

But the field of candidates is of unprecedented quality, at both ends of the ideological spectrum. There were no joke candidates, no DNA, no Barbi Boeger, no knuckleheads. Whether you agree or disagree, each of the city council and county supervisor candidates is qualified, committed, and honorable. Whoever prevails, our local government will be in capable hands. Naturally, I have my preferences as to who is better suited, more closely aligned with my values, and likely to pursue policies I support, and so should you. So do yourself a favor, get your tush out of the Barcalounger, get it down to the polling place, and cast your vote.

And not because of the usual "if you don't vote you can't complain" nonsense. But because the campaign has been hard fought but fairly and respectfully. Reward these candidates with your attention and your participation, if only to encourage candidates in future races to follow suit. If turnout is typically low because people are alienated by caustic rhetoric and character attacks, then when the tone is mutually respectful, the turnout should go up. Help prove this hypothesis, and reap the rewards in future election seasons.

I've known, and have worked congenially, with Mayor Scott Gruendl on a variety of issues for the past eight years, since I first attended a press conference announcing his candidacy for the Assembly (he lost), on a platform of taxing electronic commerce. I disagreed with him then, and I continue to disagree with him on any number of issues, but I've always considered him a friend and colleague, and have praised his leadership when merited.

So you may imagine my dismay to discover that he went on the record alleging that the Hooker Oak Alliance was employing subliminal semiotics to attack him for being gay. At issue is a mailer the HOA sent out depicting a child on a gate posted "No Trespassing", illustrating how the city has locked away acres of "open space" that no one can use. The child only wanted to fly his kite, which was decorated with a rainbow motif.

The Mayor's allegation, if I understand it correctly (and I'm not sure I do) is that the HOA deliberately chose the rainbow motif, since it is a symbol of Gay Pride, to send a veiled message that the HOA did not approve of him because of his sexual preference. Nothing could be more bizarre. His policy priorities are not aligned with ours, and that is the sole reason we endorsed other candidates.

For the record, I sit on the media committee that authored and ultimately green-lighted the mailer. It went through several iterations of editing, as we zeroed in on examples of wasteful spending, improvident and misguided investment, and unresponsiveness to the recreational needs of Chico residents. The photo was not discussed in terms of the rainbow aspect whatsoever. We thought it illustrated very clearly what we are objecting to regarding land use policy, particularly with respect to recreational opportunities. We thought the brightly colored kite offered a stark contrast to the otherwise drab scene. Hope, youthful exuberance, and a fun day in the sun and the wind, stamped out by a cold and colorless bureaucracy. Not that we thought about it in those terms; it just looked good.

The sad truth is that the Mayor seems to be more interested in decoding the symbolism of the colors on a kite than in addressing the specific concerns we raise in that mailer. I'm frankly disappointed that the Mayor would reach such an unsupportable conclusion about our message, but even more disappointed that he is using it to avoid addressing the real issues confronting struggling local business and hard-working families (including non-traditional families).

And I'm also candidly puzzled about it. Over the past few years, I have been promoting a proposal to form a citizens advisory commission with a comprehensive portfolio to study and recommend policy on a wide range of transportation issues. Scott Gruendl and Dan Nguyen-Tan (then on the council) helped me to advance the idea, which was eventually back-burnered by the Internal Affairs Committee on the recommendation of then Planning Director Kim Seidler. Now that Seidler is retired, I fully intend to try to revive the proposal.

But Scott and Dan were instrumental in getting it before the council, and in consulting with city staff about it. The funny thing about it is this; the very first time I discussed the idea with Scott, it was at a Gay Pride celebration at the Elks lodge picnic grounds a few years ago. I didn't go there to "work the room"; I went because I like a good party, and I knew I'd find cold beer, good friends, and loud music. He knows very well that I am not homophobic; indeed I am a vocal advocate of full extension of rights to gay people, including the right to marry.

For him to conclude that there is a homophobic agenda in our messaging is simply absurd thinking. Paranoia is a disorder. Perhaps the stress of campaigning on issues instead of innuendo is starting to take its toll, but I hope my friend and colleague gets appropriate care to manage his anxieties. We at the HOA have known all along that negative campaigning does not work. Scott has had ample experience to learn the same thing, but somehow the lesson eludes him. It has been said that insanity is repeating the same behavior expecting different results. I don't think Scott is insane, but I do have to say that this episode is not a persuasive example of sound judgment.

From a purely pragmatic point of view, I had always expected Scott to be re-elected, along with Dan Herbert. One very good reason we would never consider attacking Scott is because he was very likely to get a second term, and we want to be able to work with all the council members, not just those we endorse. We're going to be around for a long time, and we're going to be actively involved in legislative advocacy. Insulting the very people we will need to collaborate with in the future makes no sense. (As I advised Scott in 2000, when he was calling Larry Wahl a crook -- Scott lost, incidentally, by fewer than 100 votes -- "how do you expect to govern with people you've spent the entire campaign accusing of corruption?") Incumbents enjoy a huge advantage, Scott and Dan have both demonstrated effective leadership, and neither has been vulnerable on missteps.

Until now. I've always considered politics primarily a sporting proposition, but now I'll have to scramble to cover some positions, because I think Scott may well have just snatched defeat from the jaws of certain victory.

I've been participating on a couple of other blogs here at norcalblogs.com, including Dan Nguyen-Tan's Bullfight and Lon Glazner's Commission Impossible. That participation is what led me to start up Dog's Breakfast, in fact, and I thank my friends and colleagues for both their indulgence and their inspiration. Some folks have commented on my observations in those spaces, and a couple them chose not to be indentifiable. One person, "Ann", took offense to a comedic simile, and another, "Chuckles", presumed to refute my argument. I ignored them both.

I have been an active participant on the Well, the pioneering online community founded by Whole Earth Catalog editor Stewart Brand, since 1988. The "prime directive" of the Well is "you own your own words", which means that participants are responsible for their content. No one is permitted to participate anonymously, and one of the results of this is that it is one of the most literate, controversial, and penetrating public discussions to be found in any medium.

Back when I first joined the Well, it was hosted on a time-shared Unix-based computer. Users dialed up to it with 1200 baud modems, and interacted through a command-line interface. Email was transferred through the internet (at that time only educational, government, miltary, and research institutions were connected) via the UUCP protocol. This required the user to specify a "path" to the intended destination, by including specific host names in the address. The Well's machine would then dial up the hosts it had reciprocal UUCP privileges with (such as Stanford, or HP Labs), using the same 1200 baud modems, and transfer the mail to them, which would then forward the mail on to their network of reciprocal hosts, and so on. It could take a week for a message to get across the country in those days.

Over the next couple of years, dialup speeds improved. In 1990, Tim Berners-Lee introduced the first web server and browser, and in 1991, Netcom in San Jose (since acquired by Earthlink) became the first commercial internet access provider. By 1993, the world wide web was growing. I developed and launched the first web presence for SynOptics Communications (subsequently acquired by Nortel) that year, and have been hacking away online ever since.

Over time, the restrictions on the use of the internet have devolved. There used to be a convention called "Terms of Service" which required users to comply with specific conduct standards, including being identifiable. As the net has become increasingly promiscuous, responsibility for content has eroded. Anyone can get an anonymous email account, and everyone's mailbox fills up with untraceable spam. Thousands of blogs disgorge terabytes of nonsense and outright lies, and no one is held accountable for mistakes or misrepresentation.

As broadband access enables increased video content, we can expect to see more and more identity hacking, maliciously edited video, and virtual mischief of all sorts. Even though I am largely optimistic about the future of the net and the possibilities for enhanced digital communications, I continue to to be dubious about anonymously contributed content. I don't believe it, for one thing, and I am suspicious of the motivations of the contributor. I cannot compel anyone to self-identify when they post, but I can disregard it as malicious mischief, and filter it from my consciousness.

A founding member of the Well, Howard Rheingold, imminent author, infonaut, and internet pioneer wrote; "attention is the currency" of the online world. You, the reader, decide what to give your attention to. You get to choose what content is valid, and what content is not worthy of your time. Even if the message itself is congenial to your perspective and predispositions, I encourage you to view anonymously posted remarks with a high degree of skepticism. Anyone who is unwilling to say "I wrote this" and be accountable for its accuracy and fairness, is, by definition, an irresponsible correspondent.

For one thing, it can backfire. I could, for example, using the library's computer, go over to Bullfight, post a scathingly vicious racist diatribe, and sign it "Chuckles". I wouldn't do that, of course, but if someone did, "Chuckles" would be, for all intents and purposes, properly and unanimously despised. When you self-identify, no one can spoof and discredit you.

If, for whatever reason, you cannot have the courage of your convictions and stand up for your views, please consider keeping them to yourself. My name is Alan Chamberlain, and I approved this message.