The long-awaited DEIB plan

For almost two years, the Merry‑Go‑Round has been waiting for the City to release a “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging” plan.

During the pandemic, DEI plans – the “B” was added later – became all the rage for right-thinking governmental bodies and corporations.  Eager, as always, to march in step with the “progressive” band, the Alameda City Council, voted, 4‑to‑1, in January 2022 to engage a consulting firm called SEED Consulting to prepare a “City Equity Plan” that presented “due diligence” findings and analysis and made recommendations.  The contract was for a maximum price of $275,000, with the consultants billing at rates from $100 to $400 per hour.

SEED never produced a City Equity Plan (at least not one that was ever made public).

In fact, having been paid $135,315 under its contract, SEED has exited the scene.  Did the City fire them? we asked City Manager Jennifer Ott.  “SEED is no longer working with the City on its DEIB efforts,” she responded.  “We did not need their services any longer.”

A City staff-led “project management team” stepped into the breach, setting up an “Equity Working Group” whose 28 members included employees from every city department.  (Fire alone contributed six people.)  On December 19, staff will present the EWG’s recommendations to Council.

We’ve reviewed both the staff report and the accompanying slide deck, and we regret to say that we find ourselves a little . . . underwhelmed.  Today we’ll tell you why.

Our first problem is the paucity of data in the staff report and presentation.

We were trained in the “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” school of thinking.  Under that approach, the first step in responding to any call for reform is to collect and analyze data to determine whether a problem exists, and, if so, to identify its nature and scope.

It appears that the project management team did the legwork necessary to lay the foundation for a City of Alameda DEIB plan (or, as the staff report puts it, for “understand[ing] the landscape of the organization”):  It held two Zoom meetings with all staff; interviewed 25 employees one‑on‑one; “facilitated” six focus groups, and “hosted” a “confidential employee satisfaction survey” that received 298 responses.

Unfortunately, neither the staff report nor the presentation discloses or analyzes the findings resulting from this research.

The “diversity” inquiry usually begins by looking at the demographic characteristics of a group of employees – in particular, their race and ethnicity – compared to those of all residents of the city.  If the racial and ethnic composition of the workforce matches the composition of the population as a whole, diversity may not be an issue a DEIB plan needs to focus on.

Demographic data about City of Alameda employees isn’t included in the staff report or the slide deck, but – fortunately – one or more members of Council asked Ms. Ott for it.

Here’s the information she gave them:

(Yeah, we know the second column adds up to more than 100 percent, but Ms. Ott told us staff pulled the percentages directly from a report prepared by the U.S. Census Bureau.)

But collecting demographic data about all employees isn’t sufficient by itself to determine whether a diversity issue exists.  It’s also necessary to gather demographic data separately about managerial employees.  If it turned out, for example, that all of the department heads were white men (in Alameda, they aren’t), the DEIB plan would need to propose ways to move employees who are people of color into the management ranks.

Demographic data about the City of Alameda’s managerial employees wasn’t included in the staff report or slide deck.  Nor, apparently, did any Council member ask Ms. Ott for it.  So we did.

She replied that information on the racial breakdown of City managers would be published before the Council meeting.  (We were too polite to ask why it hadn’t been compiled already.  Better late than never, we guess.)

Collecting and analyzing demographic data for purposes of determining “diversity” is rather straightforward.  But how does one go about finding out whether the City has a problem in any of the other three areas – “equity,” “inclusion,” and “belonging” –  covered by a DEIB plan?

The only way we know of is to ask City employees questions like these:

• Do you believe that you ever have been denied the opportunity for a job assignment or promotion because of your race/ethnicity?  If so, please elaborate.

• Do you believe that you ever have been treated unfairly at work because of your race/ethnicity?  If so, please elaborate.

(We composed these questions by taking the converse of the definitions of “equity” and “inclusion” set out in the presentation.  We didn’t write a question about “belonging” because we’re not sure what that word means in the context of an employment relationship.)

Once the responses have been tabulated and assessed, more will be known about the nature and scope of any “equity” or “inclusion” issue the DEIB plan needs to address.  Suppose, for example, that only a small percentage – using data from other organizations as a measuring stick – of municipal employees say they have been treated unfairly because of their race/ethnicity.  In that case, maybe the city doesn’t have an “inclusion” problem, and the DEIB plan doesn’t need to focus on that area.  Or suppose that complaints about unfairness are concentrated in one department, or even one supervisor.  In that case, maybe the city doesn’t need an all‑encompassing DEIB plan; it just needs to consider taking remedial action for that department or that supervisor.

Presumably, during the Zoom meetings, individual interviews, and focus group meetings, and in the “confidential employee satisfaction survey,” the project management team asked City employees questions like the ones we’ve suggested.  But neither the staff report nor the slide deck presents the answers.  The project management team may know whether the City of Alameda has an “equity” or “inclusion” problem in its workforce – but the public is left in the dark.  And without knowing if anything is broke, voters will be unable to evaluate the merits of whatever is being proposed to fix it.

(Before we continue, we should note that a data-based approach is not the only way to determine whether the City should adopt a DEIB plan, and, if so, what it should consist of.  As we read scholars like Ibram X. Kendi, all American institutions are inherently racist.  Necessarily, the City of Alameda is one of them.  So one is entitled to assume – no evidence needed – that the City invariably abuses its employees who are people of color, and an “anti-racist” DEIB plan becomes an essential antidote.)

So we’re left with the EWG recommendations.  There are 14 of them:

• Recommendation 1:   Implement processes, policies, and procedures that are fair, equitable, and structured to attract a diverse pool of candidates.

• Recommendation 2:   Develop clear, transparent, accessible, and fair hiring practices.

• Recommendation 3:   Develop policies and practices across the City that welcome new hires.

• Recommendation 4:   Provide clear career pathways for new hires.

• Recommendation 5:   Provide transparent and equitable pathways and resources for promotional opportunities.

• Recommendation 6:   Provide equitable access to professional development opportunities.

• Recommendation 7:   Build a stronger culture of belonging.

• Recommendation 8:   Provide harm prevention awareness and complaint resolution.

• Recommendation 9:   Clarify the City’s vision and provide an overview of departments and their roles.

• Recommendation 10:  Engage staff in the City’s DEIB efforts.

• Recommendation 11:  Keep staff updated about the major projects and areas of concern within each department and across the City.

• Recommendation 12:  Encourage staff to engage in community relations with a strong commitment to customer service.

• Recommendation 13:  Establish employee core values for the City of Alameda.

• Recommendation 14:  Create a permanent DEIB working group/committee and full‑time staff position.

Frankly, we consider this set of recommendations to be more opaque than enlightening.  For one thing, the list is written in consultant‑speak, a language we use neither at home nor in polite company.  The reference to “the City’s vision” reminds us of George H. W. Bush (remember the “vision thing”?), but we’re skeptical about whether an inanimate legal entity like a city can have a “vision.”  (No wonder it needs to be “clarif[ied].”)  We’re equally puzzled by the recommendation for the City to “create a culture of belonging.”  Not being an anthropologist, we don’t know how a municipal government goes about “creating a culture,” much less what a “culture of belonging” looks like.

Moreover, the recommendations are riddled with circumlocutions that could have been stated, more clearly, in plain language.  For example, what do phrases like providing “equitable pathways and resources for promotional opportunities” and “equitable access to professional development opportunities” mean?  Is the point that promotions and eligibility for continuing education should not be influenced by an employee’s race or ethnicity?  If it is, why not say so in simple English?

Turning to the substance of the recommendations, we find them perplexing in a couple of respects.

First, for several recommendations, the logical connection between the prescribed action and the stated goals of promoting diversity, equity, inclusion, and “belonging” is not readily apparent.  For example, “provid[ing] an overview of departments and their roles” and “keep[ing] staff updated about the major projects and areas of concern within each department and across the City” sound like good suggestions.  Indeed, they would seem to lead to a better‑informed workforce.  But it’s not clear to us how they would make the City of Alameda a more “equitable” or more “inclusive” place to work for employees who are people of color.  And if these recommendations don’t offer such a benefit, what are they doing in a DEIB plan?

(A similar point can be made about the recommendation to “[e]ncourage staff to engage in community relations with a strong commitment to customer service.”)

Second, several recommendations urge the City to take actions that we would have assumed it was taking already.  Consider, for example, the first three recommendations made by the EWG’s “Recruitment, Hiring, Onboarding, & Career Advancement” subcommittee:  The City should endeavor to attract a diverse pool of candidates for employment; it should use fair hiring practices; and it should welcome new hires.  But isn’t the City of Alameda doing all of these things today?  (We’d certainly hope so.)  If it is, the DEIB plan is simply reflecting the status quo and “recommending” that the City continue it.  In that case, what value does it add?

(In fact, the only recommendation that struck us as charting new ground is the one to “[p]rovide harm prevention awareness and complaint resolution.”  The staff report fleshes this out by suggesting, as “example strategies,” that the City should consider supporting “employee peer groups,” creating “a safe space for staff to voice concerns/complaints,” and setting up a “Restorative Justice Committee.”  These are pretty trendy – we stopped ourselves from saying “woke” – ideas, and, as far as we know, the City isn’t doing any of them today.)

Finally, we had to chuckle at the last recommendation: “Create a permanent DEIB working group/committee and full‑time staff position.”  This strikes us a classic example of the bureaucratic mindset:  The solution to every problem is to set up a standing committee and create a new staff position.  And lest the reader think we’re being too picky, take a look at the slide deck:  For each of the recommendations, the slide shows the extent of support for it among City employees.  Most of the time, 75 percent or more endorse the recommendation.  For the last one, only 39 percent are in favor.

It is not our intent – especially in the Christmas season – to bad‑mouth Ms. Ott, the project management team, or the EWG.  Indeed, we can conjure plausible defenses for the deficiencies we’ve pointed out.  The City’s managers undoubtedly wanted to involve as many “stakeholders” as possible in the creation of a DEIB plan.  Likewise, they surely want to see their work product approved by a Council majority.  For these reasons, they may have felt an incentive to prepare a set of recommendations that, stylistically, read as if they had been drafted by a committee and, substantively, fail to offer any new or controversial policies.

Alas, they ended up with a laundry list to which even Florida Governor Ron DeSantis might not object.  And we don’t mean that as a compliment.

Somehow, we suspect that, if Ms. Ott reads this column, she’ll take us off her holiday card list.  So perhaps it’s only fair – or, if you prefer, equitable and inclusive – to give her the last word:

The intent of these DEIB efforts is to continue to improve our organization and organizational culture with an aspiration of making all of our employees feel welcome, regardless of their background, like they belong and can perform their jobs as safely and productively as possible.  We want to attract as diverse and broad pool of candidates as possible and retain high‑performing employees as long as possible.  These recommendations help us accomplish those goals.  We also believe that by implementing these recommendations and improving our employee experience and deepening our employees’ understanding of, and commitment to, DEIB that we will be able to provide better services to all Alamedans.