Why the City Manager Must Communicate Decisions Clearly

We don’t expect a city manager to answer every email. But we do expect her to lead — and that means explaining the why behind major decisions that affect the people she serves.

When residents ask legitimate questions about the library project, bond funding, or use of reserves, they deserve clear answers — not silence or redirection.

BART responded promptly and directly when asked about the project’s timeline, parking, and ground lease terms. They didn’t dodge questions or hide behind the process. They answered.

Our city manager did not. Nor did Greg Lyman who represents the city.

If the city manager cannot defend or pre-emptively explain a decision, it’s likely an ill-advised one.

Because sound decisions can withstand scrutiny. They invite questions, welcome discussion, and demonstrate how public dollars serve public purpose. When leaders avoid explaining their choices, it raises legitimate concerns — not just about the decision itself, but about the process behind it.

An unexamined decision is often one made in haste, without adequate analysis, stakeholder input, or long-term planning. That’s not leadership — that’s risk management disguised as governance.

In a well-run city, transparency isn’t a burden; it’s evidence of confidence. A city manager who truly understands and believes in the rationale for her recommendations would be eager to explain them. The unwillingness to do so suggests one of two things: either the reasoning is weak, or the public reaction has been underestimated. Both reflect poor judgment.

Residents have every right to expect their city’s top administrator to articulate not just what the city is doing, but why. When that explanation never comes, it tells the community everything it needs to know about how decisions are really being made — and for whom.

Leadership isn’t about managing perception. It’s about managing truth.

The Newsletter Problem

The city’s monthly newsletter could be an incredible opportunity — a chance for the city manager to speak directly to residents, share updates on projects, and build confidence in how funds are managed.

Instead, it’s a missed opportunity.

Each edition is filled with cheerful recaps of events and reminders of what already happened. Nice, but hollow. There’s no acknowledgment of the city’s challenges, no explanation of how decisions are made, and no commitment to residents’ long-term well-being.

If leadership won’t be transparent in a newsletter, how can we trust them with tens of millions of new debt for a library bond?

A city newsletter should not merely promote — it should inform, educate, and engage. A leader confident in her decisions would use it to demonstrate stewardship, not avoidance. Leadership isn’t about curating good news; it’s about telling the whole story, including the uncomfortable parts.

What’s Still Unanswered

Project: Proposed El Cerrito Library at the BART station

1. Tax Credits and Architectural Plans
When will the developer apply for tax credits, and will drawings be released before voters decide on the bond?
➡️ BART’s response: “Please consult Related or the City.”

2. Timeline and Potential Delays
What are the chances of another delay?
➡️ BART’s response: “Depends on market conditions and housing finance availability.”

3. Ground Lease Terms
Who are the parties to the agreement?
➡️ BART’s response: “Between BART and the City of El Cerrito.”

4. Parking for Library Patrons
Will residents be able to use BART lots?
➡️ BART’s response: “No agreement currently exists.”

5. Competitive Bidding for Construction
Will there be open competition?
➡️ BART’s response: “Please consult Related or the City.”

Before the Vote

Voters are being asked to trust the City with millions in new debt. But trust must be earned through openness, not avoided through silence.

Residents deserve clear answers to basic questions about cost, transparency, and long-term fiscal responsibility.

If the city manager cannot explain how the agreements are structured or how the risks will be managed, she should not be asking for our trust.

Good intentions don’t replace good governance. Transparency is not optional.

Because if a decision cannot be defended, it shouldn’t be funded.

If you agree, share this post with neighbors and friends.

influenced by social media posts and comments.