I sat down with Brian Bertka for Part 3 of our ongoing conversation on I Can See Clearly Now to examine an issue that often receives less attention than transparency itself: trust within government. Specifically, we discussed what happens when members of a City Council do not share information evenly with one another, and how that breakdown affects the entire structure of municipal governance in Farmington Hills, Michigan.
Farmington Hills operates under a council manager form of government. All seven council members, including the mayor, are elected by the same constituency and share equal responsibility in setting public policy. When communication breaks down among those members, it raises deeper concerns than a single meeting or agenda item. Brian described his understanding of events surrounding a special meeting request that was not communicated to all council members.
“When a council member attempts to call a special meeting and does not include all the other council members, you begin to dissect the council.”
Brian Bertka
From my perspective, this kind of exclusion risks fragmenting a governing body that depends on mutual trust. Disagreement is not only expected, it is healthy. What undermines effective governance is not disagreement, but selective communication. When some members are prepared and others are not, the quality of deliberation suffers, and confidence in the outcome erodes.
Brian emphasized that fragmentation at the council level does not remain contained. It filters downward into the administrative side of government. Department heads, staff, and boards begin to question stability, direction, and even their own professional futures.
“That’s the worst thing that could happen to the city of Farmington Hills is a fragmented council.”
Brian Bertka
We discussed how uncertainty at the top of an organization often leads to reduced performance throughout the system. In city government, this affects public safety, planning, public services, and economic development. When trust is broken among elected officials, it becomes difficult for career staff to operate with confidence and focus.
Brian framed this breakdown using a simple but powerful analogy, describing governance as a chain of responsibility that must remain intact in order to function effectively.
“The chain is broken. It’s that simple.”
Brian Bertka
We also explored the consequences of broken credibility. Once rumors begin to replace clear communication, they take on a life of their own. Even unfounded concerns can begin to feel real, particularly in an environment where employees expect to be managed in an apolitical and professional manner.
“Once you break the chain, you lose your credibility.”
Brian Bertka
This conversation reinforced an important distinction. Transparency is not simply about public disclosure. It is also about how elected officials treat one another, how information is shared internally, and whether respect and inclusivity guide decision making. In Farmington Hills, the strength of local government depends not only on authority, but on trust, credibility, and a commitment to open communication at every level.
