News-Record.com

Eric, I don't know why the cost of the retreat was news. On the one hand, sure, it costs money to have a retreat. But on the other hand, a retreat at the CCL is a wonderful thing and good for civic leaders. Unless they get leadership training, they won't be better leaders. Always attaching a dollar figure to it makes readers say, "It costs too much!" even though the cost of not having training is much higher (albeit hard to quantify).

Training and growth are important and I know the information is public. But I don't think it needs to be stressed (it was a cute little ending tag to your post) so much. Bruce Davis isn't involved; the costs should be reasonable because costs are public; the elected officials should be afforded leadership training; and the CCL is one of the best in the nation.

Focus on that...

(Disclaimer: I have no first-hand knowledge of this specific story and have not been involved one bit in its reporting.)

Sue:

The cost of the retreat is news worthy. Is it the whole story? No. Is it part of the story? Yes, in my mind, without question.

If for no other reason, it is newsworthy because the council will be spending money to discuss spending loads more of money (that whole 4.25 cent tax increase thing). They will be having those discussions outside their usual venue and, while I'm sure they will be open to the media, will not necessarily be as convenient and open for the public to observe (no Ch. 13 for instance).

Isn't it a wee bit ironic (maybe even disturbing) that they'll use the retreat to discuss how to spend hundreds of millions of dollars but don't know the relatively small dollars budget for this exercise?

Were I still on the city council beat (or worse, Eric's editor) the question I would be asking is why couldn't the council accomplish what they're talking about right there at city hall? Setting policies and priorities is the essence of the city council's job - why do they need a retreat to do it? Why should they need to incur any extra cost? What exactly are the taxpayers getting for their money?

The return could be excellent, well worth the expenditure of time and money - yes, again, a relatively small amount of money.

But if the citizens of Greensboro are to trust the council's decisions on the big calls (how many cops are on the street, how many fire trucks are in the house, what's on the next bond referendum) wouldn't it help to know they've got the little stuff right rather than just take it on faith?

Look at it another way. The council was just granted a new term by taxpayers. As you point out, CCL is one of the premier centers of its kind in the country. One of the council’s first collective actions is the grant themselves a privilege - training at CCL - many high level executives would give their right pinky for. It’s not a trip to Hawaii – but it’s not such a distant cousin either.

This brings us neatly back to your mention of Bruce Davis. One of Davis' first decisions as commissioner's chairman was to hold a retreat, out of the county. He also at the time, and I'm going to be charitable here, inadvertently mislead his colleagues about the cost. It was sorry, bush-league screw up. He made hash out of the small stuff right out of the gate and that foreshadowed the hash the commissioners under his leadership made out of the big stuff. (That whole Jenks Crayton affair comes to mind.)

So again - wouldn't it be better to see the council be open, accountable and up front about their retreat? Wouldn't it be better for them to be able to articulate why they need to spend extra money to do something that's rather basic to their job description? If they handle the small stuff well, might it not give taxpayers more faith when it comes time to sweat the big stuff?

My bottom line here is that Eric was correct in raising the question. It shouldn't take a whole lot of effort for the city to answer it.

Wow - this post got two more comments than I expected. Let me add a couple of things.

As I understand it, the CCL is just a location to hold the retreat - the council is going there to talk amongst themselves with a facilitator's assistance about the city's priorities, not to get training from the CCL.

I don't imagine the retreat will cost very much, and I don't view it as the most important part of the story. If I did, it would have been my first sentence, not my last. But I suspected that if I didn't ask the question, someone (either an editor or reader) would have posed it to me.

The desire for the retreat, I believe, stems from a desire expressed by council shortly after hiring Mitch Johnson to take a more hands-on role in setting the city's direction. So much of their council meetings and briefings are spent either listening or reacting to issues raised by staff and the public that council wanted some time to talk with each other and work out what their priorities are.

Mark, I appreciate your POV on this (as well as Eric's comments) and agree completely with your assessment of Bruce Davis's out-of-county retreat. It was bush; they couldn't vote legally; the price was silly; the winter weather undermined anything good that could have come out of it.

The City Council members being facilitated by a CCL leader is a good thing. Discussing possibilities and letting new members get their feet wet outside of public scrutiny is appropriate, too, IMO.

My point was this: things cost money. We should spend money on *worthwhile* things that benefit our community (see: McKinsey report). Too often, we hear complaints about a $500 meeting when, in business, it'd be just fine and appropriate.

Because it's government, it's rightfully accountable. But aren't we GLAD that they're at the CCL with that quality expertise? I hate to see reporting that focuses on the relatively low cost and doesn't focus on the benefits that the CCL leader and facility will offer. (No, Eric did not focus on it; he merely tossed it in at the end and I thought it cheapened the story.)

This is a VERY small point. What's important is what comes out of the meeting. But we have to recognize that spending some money on things that some community members will pounce on as unnecessary is really just the cost of doing business at this level.