City Council could use a lot better PR

I was one who applauded the news the Spokane Valley City Council voted to hire a public information officer. In fact, I was downright excited – just ask my wife.

It was the first thing I told her between mouthfuls of oatmeal the morning the news came out.

As I see it, the purpose of a PIO is not to come between us and our government but to “sharpen the message.” This means helping the council frame positions on key issues; preparing council members to hear questions and respond within the context of their goals and mission; improving citizen-government partnership by disseminating clearly written and accurate information; and ensuring media coverage is fair and balanced.

That’s a pretty tall order, but life is nothing if not public relations – be it with the mother-in-law or the boss. Is it even possible to rise to the top of the ladder – any ladder – and not fall off, without good PR skills?

Some of us need more help with these skills than others, including yours truly. Based on recent events, the council needs plenty of help, too.

Let’s start with the save-the-library campaign.

The council, despite its depth of business experience, kept forgetting the difference between “features” and “benefits.”

“We are looking at all the options” is not something a salesman would say when pitching a new car to a customer, but I heard it over and over. And what about this classic response from the Oct. 13, 2004, town hall meeting?

Challenged to affirm a position for or against Spokane County Library District, a councilman replied, “I don’t need to say it because it’s known.”

That’s perfectly clear, isn’t it? But wait, there’s more.

Even down to the 11th-hour public meeting, when a City Council “no” vote would have meant SCLD would shutter the Valley branch Jan. 1, the council’s performance was a PR nightmare. Not only did one council member challenge a child speaking in favor of SCLD, but another one actually claimed the problem was a lack of communication by the SCLD when, in fact, two members of the City Council and the deputy city manager were at the meeting when the SCLD formulated its response to Valley demands.

Just ask my wife. She was at the SCLD meeting, sitting in the front row!

Still don’t believe the City Council needs help with its image? Consider a 2004 Valley Voice guest column written by a council member explaining the need for a tax increase despite campaign promises to the contrary.

The writer clearly deflects blame by saying, “When the Boundary Review Board estimated the new city’s revenue stream, it made some assumptions that did not prove to be accurate.”

A PIO might have reminded the councilman that incorporation proponents never accepted the Boundary Review Board’s numbers. In fact, they pooh-poohed its less than enthusiastic report on the proposed city’s fiscal outlook.

City backers and City Council wannabes insisted there would be a $5 million surplus.

You don’t need to ask my wife about this one, as both of us attended all the candidate forums except one. I even challenged a candidate on this point, asking what they would do if there were a $5 million deficit rather than a surplus.

I bet a lot of readers remember that, too.

The council member then does an interesting thing. After pointing out there was a potential $4 million gap between forecast and actual sales tax revenue, he talks about how cheaply the city is run by noting city salary and benefit costs as a percentage of budget, without stating the actual dollars.

A little math reveals the core cost of city government at $3.6 million, or 90 percent of the expected revenue shortfall.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to connect the two numbers and ask the obvious question.

A good PIO isn’t going to save anyone from foot-in-mouth disease, but he or she can certainly help them miss the target.

This will be especially important if the “Back to the Future” movement succeeds in placing disincorporation on this November’s ballot.