Publication Date: Wednesday, August 25, 2004
Guest Opinion: It's broken -- so let's fix the 'Palo Alto Process'
Guest Opinion: It's broken -- so let's fix the 'Palo Alto Process'
(August 25, 2004) by Bob Rosenzweig, Larry Klein, Barbara Spreng and John Tarlton
Somewhere along the line, the Palo Alto Process evolved into a broken thing.
It once was an expression of pride in a system of government that welcomed the widest possible citizen participation in decision-making, but it now symbolizes widespread discontent with how our local government works.
A process intended to produce broad agreement on difficult and divisive policy issues became instead an instrument for delay through endless debate, debilitating vetoes by small fragments of the community and retreat from hard decisions by the City Council (or school board) and staff.
Examples abound: Hyatt Rickey's, Alma Plaza, storm drains, media center/PAUSD collaboration, playing fields -- or something, anything -- at the Mayfield School site, 800 High Street.
It is tempting to think that some administrative rules or procedures can cure the dysfunctions caused by the much-maligned Palo Alto Process.
The truth is more complicated -- primarily because the problems are not just a set of bureaucratic rules imposed on us while no one was watching.
City Auditor Sharon Erickson last year did the community a great service by delineating 34 specific problems in the planning process. By all means we should adopt most, if not all, of her proposals. But those are only mechanical steps -- and they affect only one area of community decision-making. We believe that the Palo Alto Process has infected virtually all decision-making of the city and much of the school district's as well. To truly redefine the Palo Alto Process we need to change our political culture, not just some surface rules.
Two years ago, a number of us created a mechanism we hoped would help define and resolve some of the broader issues confronting the community, when we formed Palo Altans for Government Effectiveness (PAGE).
As we see it, the Palo Alto Process consists of an unreasonably long time spent in reaching a decision. The extra time is needed to search out every last remotely relevant fact and nuance, or in the hope that a solution acceptable to all will somehow evolve or magically appear.
But it really is an abdication of responsibility by those whom the voters elected to take responsibility. Along the way, we cast doubt on the professional capabilities of the staff, whose job it is to bring information and recommendations to elected officials.
New committees, new studies, seemingly endless meetings, and the risk of being rebuffed for no substantive reason do not produce a climate that is conducive to high-quality staff work.
Another part of the Process needs repair, as well. Citizens have learned they can use the Process to delay and perhaps prevent a decision they fear will go against them. They know it takes only a small number of vocal folks to show up at a council or school board meeting to set the Process in motion -- endless motion.
This behavior evolved over decades. And, as with any culture, it will not be easy to change. But it is sapping the vitality of our community, and we need to begin to change it.
This "attitude adjustment" must come from all segments of our community. Our elected leaders must set the tone by resisting constant demands for new studies and other delay tactics. We must not give up the openness of decision-making that we all value -- but those who are elected to decide conflicts over difficult issues must be willing to take the risks of actually doing that in a timely manner.
Voices from the broader community and the media need constantly to remind elected officials and others of our commitment to creating a different Palo Alto Process.
And as ordinary citizens we need to resolve not to delay decision-making as a guerilla tactic to defeat something that would otherwise pass. It won't be easy to change the Palo Alto Process, but the rewards of success will be great.
Bob Rosenzweig (robertmr@mindspring.com), Larry Klein (lklein@rfwk.com), Barbara Spreng (BSpreng@aol.com) and John Tarlton (j_tarlton@tarlton.com) are members of the PAGE board.
E-mail a friend a link to this story. | 
