OP-ED: Salina May Not Be in Crisis. That Does Not Mean the Questions Go Away.
By Sally Hemmer
Commissioner Gary Norris says Salina is not a city in crisis, and that may very well be true. But “not in crisis” is not the same thing as saying there are no serious problems worth examining, and that distinction matters because the real issue is not whether Salina qualifies for the most dramatic word available. The issue is whether the concerns being raised by residents are supported by facts.
Commissioner Norris says decisions should be driven by “data, not hearsay or emotion,” which seems like a reasonable standard. The problem is that when the available data is examined, some of the concerns he is attempting to calm do not simply disappear.
Take the water system. The City’s own Utilities Director has said that replacing roughly 1% of Salina’s water system each year would mean replacing about 3.5 miles of water main annually. The City has also said it wants to increase funding in 2027 so it can reach at least that level. If the City itself is saying 3.5 miles per year is the benchmark it needs to meet, then asking why current replacement levels are below that is not panic, exaggeration or hearsay. It is a fairly ordinary question based on the City’s own numbers.
There is also a difference between water quality and the physical condition of the infrastructure carrying that water. Passing water-quality tests is obviously important, but it does not tell us whether aging cast-iron mains are being replaced quickly enough. A clean water sample does not make an old pipe new, although it would certainly be convenient if municipal infrastructure worked that way.
The same problem appears in the discussion around Animal Services. Commissioner Norris described the situation as the result of poor decisions by various individuals over several years. That is one way to summarize it, although the independent assessment commissioned by the City was considerably more specific. It identified problems involving leadership, staff training, sanitation, disease control, facility conditions, controlled substances and animal care. Employees have remained on leave while criminal cases move through court, legal expenses have accumulated, and the City has explored turning shelter operations over to a private organization.
Perhaps none of that meets someone’s preferred definition of a crisis, but changing the adjective does not change the underlying facts. Residents are still entitled to ask how those problems developed, how long they were allowed to continue, what they have cost taxpayers and what is being done to prevent them from happening again.
The discussion about transparency and communication raises a similar issue. Commissioner Norris has suggested improving or expanding the City’s communications operation, and there may be value in that. Better communication from City Hall is rarely a bad thing. However, government communication and independent scrutiny are not interchangeable. A City communications office exists to explain what the City is doing. Citizens, journalists and watchdogs exist to ask whether what the City is doing makes sense, whether the explanation matches the public record and whether additional information should be disclosed.
Transparency is not simply government becoming more effective at telling its own story. Sometimes transparency involves someone outside government asking an uncomfortable question and continuing to ask it after the answer becomes inconvenient. That process is not always pleasant for the people being questioned, but pleasantness has never been the standard by which public accountability is measured.
The same caution should apply to the discussion about public comment at City Commission meetings. Reasonable rules of decorum are appropriate. People should behave civilly, meetings should not be allowed to dissolve into chaos, and threats or personal attacks should not be tolerated. At the same time, government should be very cautious about responding to public frustration by narrowing the public’s opportunity to speak.
There is a difference between what government may legally restrict and what it should restrict. That difference becomes even more important when officials are simultaneously arguing that the answer to public distrust is better communication. Temporarily limiting public comment while discussing ways to improve public communication would certainly be an unusual way to demonstrate that commitment.
None of this requires believing Salina is collapsing, poorly run in every department or filled with incompetent public employees. It is entirely possible for Salina to be a good community and still have serious problems. It is possible for City employees to work hard while systems fail around them. It is possible for commissioners to care about the community and still make decisions that deserve close scrutiny. It is also possible for residents to criticize local government without being against Salina.
Those ideas are not contradictory.
So perhaps Commissioner Norris is correct and Salina is not a city in crisis. Fine. If that is the case, there should be even less reason to resist detailed questions about water-main replacement, Animal Services, legal expenses, public records, public comment, government communication and accountability.
The word “crisis” is ultimately subjective. Those issues are measurable.
And no matter what adjective is placed in front of them, the numbers and the records remain exactly where they were.
A Note to Commissioner Norris
Commissioner Norris, if the standard is truly “data, not hearsay or emotion,” then the public should be able to expect that same standard when officials defend the condition of City government. Reassurance is not the same thing as evidence, and confidence in an institution is not strengthened by asking fewer questions about it.
If the concerns being raised are overstated, the best response is not to dismiss the framing. It is to provide the records, explain the numbers, answer the questions directly and let the facts make the case.
That would probably do more to restore public confidence than any communications strategy the City could design. We are all well aware of what the city's capabilities are at this point.
