The Secret Survey: Why Transparency and Trust in Government Matter More Than Ever
A secret $48,000 contract between the City of Cleveland Heights and Burges & Burges Strategists to conduct a citywide satisfaction survey—hidden from public view and city council oversight—has raised serious concerns about transparency, fairness, and potential misuse of taxpayer dollars. Despite Mayor Seren’s public assurances that such a survey would not be conducted in an election year, the contract was quietly executed, leaving residents to question whether public resources were leveraged for political advantage.
In a democracy, transparency is the foundation upon which trust between government and citizens is built. Without it, we are left to question motives, wonder what decisions are being made behind closed doors, and doubt whether leaders are acting in the public's best interest. Recent revelations about a contract between the City of Cleveland Heights and Burges & Burges Strategists—a political strategy firm—serve as a glaring example of why transparency and trust must remain at the heart of our civic processes.
The Hidden Contract: What We Know
On October 23, 2024, Mayor Kahlil Seren's administration quietly entered into a $48,000 contract with Burges & Burges Strategists to conduct a citywide satisfaction survey. The survey’s purpose was outlined in the firm’s proposal: to “assess how the administration has aligned with community expectations” and “review what has been working well and what needs to be retooled” since Cleveland Heights shifted to a “strong-mayor” form of government in 2019.
Because the contract fell under the $50,000 threshold, it did not require city council approval and, therefore, was not disclosed to the public. Residents became aware of this arrangement only after anonymous employees alerted the community, leading concerned citizens to obtain a copy of the contract through public records requests.
HERE is a PDF of the contract. See images of all pages of the contract on our RECEIPTS page.
Public Denial: A Misalignment of Words and Actions
In what can only be described as a stunning reversal, Mayor Seren twice assured the public that a citywide satisfaction survey would not be conducted in 2025 due to the upcoming municipal election.
On February 18, 2025, during a council finance committee meeting, Mayor Seren explicitly stated:
“I do have some concerns about budgeting and engaging in a citywide satisfaction survey primarily because it's an election year.”Again, during a March 4, 2025, city council meeting, he reiterated:
“I would inform the council members if the administration was going to be doing a resident survey, especially since I made it very, very clear that in a municipal election year I thought that it would be wholly inappropriate for any of us to pursue some sort of satisfaction survey that really could and might reasonably be assumed to have political implications.”
Despite these public declarations, the contract with Burges & Burges was quietly executed months earlier—without public knowledge or council input.
Potential Political Implications: Who Benefits from the Survey?
It remains unclear whether Mayor Seren has retained Burges & Burges Strategists for his own re-election campaign, but the timing of the contract raises critical concerns. A citywide satisfaction survey is an invaluable tool for shaping political messaging, identifying voter sentiment, and tailoring campaign strategies.
If only one candidate has access to this information—and that information was funded by taxpayer dollars—it undermines fairness in the electoral process. Residents deserve to know whether public resources were leveraged to gain a strategic advantage in the upcoming election.
Why This Matters: Democracy Requires Trust and Accountability
This situation strikes at the core of the values and conditions necessary for a thriving democracy:
✅ Transparency:
Government decisions, especially those involving taxpayer dollars, should be open and accessible to the public. Concealing the existence of this contract undermines accountability and deprives residents of their right to know how their money is being spent.
✅ Equality and Fairness of Opportunity:
When information from a taxpayer-funded survey is available only to one campaign, it creates an uneven playing field. Fair elections depend on ensuring that all candidates operate with equal access to information and resources.
✅ Citizen Involvement:
Cleveland Heights residents overwhelmingly supported the shift to a strong-mayor form of government to increase accountability and responsiveness. However, when major decisions—like conducting a satisfaction survey—are made behind closed doors, it weakens community trust and erodes the participatory spirit that has defined Cleveland Heights for generations.
✅ Trust in Government:
Trust is not a given—it must be earned. When elected officials say one thing publicly while doing another privately, they chip away at that trust. Public confidence in our institutions is fragile, and when undermined, it can take years to rebuild.
Analyzing the Burges & Burges Proposal: What Was the Plan?
The Burges & Burges proposal outlined a comprehensive approach to gathering data and assessing public sentiment, including:
In-depth interviews with opinion leaders across various sectors.
Department leader interviews to identify shifts in roles and expectations.
An opt-in online survey targeting at least 1,000 responses—though the survey would not have been statistically valid.
Reviewing communication methods and messages to assess how well information was received.
Benchmarking against peer cities to evaluate best practices.
A potential phone survey to quantify qualitative findings (at additional cost).
Creating a community task force to guide the implementation of recommendations.
While such a survey could provide useful insights, the process itself lacked transparency and public input—a contradiction of the very values that the survey purported to uphold.
What Comes Next: Demanding Accountability
Cleveland Heights residents deserve answers:
Why was this contract kept hidden from the public?
Was the information gathered through this survey intended to benefit a political campaign?
How can residents be assured that future decisions involving taxpayer dollars will be made with transparency and accountability?
Moving forward, public disclosure and council oversight should be required for any city contracts that involve community research or engagement—regardless of cost thresholds. Public trust can only be restored through a commitment to transparency, fair practices, and genuine citizen involvement.
As Cleveland Heights navigates this pivotal moment, the community must demand a higher standard from its leadership—one that reflects the values and conditions necessary for a vibrant, inclusive, and democratic society.
Our democracy depends on it.
