Former alderman and now County Councilman Josh Cohen, who may possibly be a candidate for mayor, is an opponent of the city manager style of government. While readers know this blog strongly supports Alderman Arnett's and Israel's charter amendment to create such a government for Annapolis, I am pleased to have Cohen's say on the matter published here. I offer a few comments at the end, and two in the body of his text:
Paul:
I think that the one elected official who is on the ballot citywide, who answers to and is accountable to every voter citywide, the one who is the recognized leader of the city, the one whom voters will hold accountable for the city's performance regardless of what form of government we have, should be the one with the authority to assemble his or her leadership team.
Your point about the mayor having too much power because the mayor also chairs the council is a valid one. Unlike Ellen who describes the current system as a "weak mayor" system, I think Annapolis' mayor is actually stronger than the typical "strong executive." In my view it is a stronger position to chair the council and to have one of nine votes than to have a veto but be excluded from the legislative process as is the case in a typical "strong executive" system. Pip [former Mayor Pip Moyer] always said that the mayor's position in Annapolis was like serving as governor and speaker of the house at the same time.
If people think the mayor's position holds too much power as you seem to, I think a more constructive dialog would be over whether to separate the mayor from the legislative branch and create a typical "strong" executive system. But frankly I think the current system we have is fine. For all of the concern people express that the current system leaves the aldermen powerless over the administration of the city, the reality is that all of these exempt positions starting with the city administrator require council approval. Have any of the aldermen ever exercised the authority they already have to deny an appointment and vote "no?"
In a pure council/manager system, where does the buck stop? If every council member is in charge of appointing the CAO, then no one is in charge. Everyone can point fingers and say "Well I'm just one of five votes; I don't have the ability to appoint the CAO myself." Even when voters elect a new mayor, the new mayor would still be powerless to fix any management problems at City Hall if the entrenched manager could still rely on five other votes to retain him or her.
Ironically, although I'm a proud Democrat, I am concerned that this scenario could easily happen the next time Annapolis elects a Republican mayor. We have had three GOP mayors going back to the 1970s, but the City Council has been and will continue to be Democratic for the foreseeable future. [You can foresee the future?] It would be easy to envision a scenario in which Annapolis elects a GOP mayor, but five Democratic aldermen want to show who is boss and appoint a city manager over the objections of the mayor. That would just create havoc.
It's bad enough when the mayor does not get along with the rest of the council; imagine how dysfunctional it would be if the mayor were at odds with the CAO occupying the office right next door. That would serve no one well, least of all the citizens.
Instead of doing a 180 and shifting to a pure council/manager form of government, I think a more prudent step would be to strengthen and clarify the role and authority of the city administrator's position. While I think the mayor should retain the power to appoint the CAO, I think the charter should be clear that the mayor is not the day-to-day, hands-on manager of the city. That individual should be a seasoned, professional manager. The charter should give him or her the clear authority to exercise management of the department heads. This concept is along the lines of the original charter amendment that Dick Israel proposed. To me that is a reasonable compromise to enhance day-to-day management of the city while still keeping a clear line of accountability from the CAO to the mayor to the voters.
Josh
Dear Josh:
Of course there are valid reasons to support or oppose any style of government--just ask your friendly neighborhood anarchist. But seriously, this form of government works in thousands of cities with tens if not hundreds of millions of residents. Can it be that bad? You of all people must know the sense of frustration and powerlessness that can occur on city council--with any mayor--so would it not be nice to be equal more or less with the mayor and together have authority over the manager? How would you like it if Mr. Leopold also chaired your council? A city manager will even the field, de-politicize the daily operations of government, return powers to city council, separate the powers of executive and legislative and for gosh sakes--bring in someone who understands administration and finance and budgets! Have we ever had a mayor who truly had the managerial skills needed? Do you know how to manage such a complex bureaucracy and budget? There is a difference between leading and managing and being elected to lead but also having to manage.
Please send comments, subscribe, share with your friends, and support our sponsors. Join us at Ahh Coffee! in Eastport almost every Thursday from 8-9 am.
Bay Daily on Hiatus
-
Congratulations to Bay Daily creator, Tom Pelton, who has accepted a
position with another organization working to make the world a better
place. In his ab...
10 years ago
7 Comments:
It great that you are providing a forum to discuss this issue, I am still not sure what the Crapital thinks it's role. My two cents. This city has "professional managers" running the departments, some would say we have too managers and Ellen had to create departments to give all these "managers" jobs. I would argue that we don't need another level of management in the city government. What we really have is a lack of leadership in the city government. I get the sense that you will be a support of Josh, but I would hate to be in his shoes when someone asks him what he did for Eastport, and if he didn't do a single thing for Eastport including Policing it, why should we elect him mayor. The real reason Annapolitans don't have a lot of trust in the city government is because this city has no direction. This city government gets together to fix problems. The default image of Annapolis is tourist trap. Which is why the enviro consultants told Ellen this really isn't an enviro friendly place. What this city needs is a mission with a comprehensive plan and vision. With a comprehensive vision, there is no need for another level of management, the departments will work together to create this vision. The problem is not lacking another level of government, the problem is our elected city officials act as firemen, running around putting out fires, not acting as leaders.
Sorry, but I'm not following your reasoning here but if I were to pick apart each of your many and varied points, I think I would be able to counter and therefore come out in favor of a city manager. If we don't have trust because we don't have direction, maybe we should get some stability by allowing a mayor and city council to focus on policy and direction and have a real pro to manage progress in that direction.
You seem to want to buck the current trend. Companies that got too big in the 90's and are facing bankruptcy now, are peeling off the level off management between the executives and the department heads first.
The problem with Moyer is, no one really knows what her platform was when she was running. I would say it was more of a friendly vote, or maybe she bought just enough votes in public housing to win.
I find it interesting that this city council is unable to set policy, set goals and measure progress for each of the departments. I have never been to a meeting, but has a department head even been before the city council to discuss what the goals are for their departments and how they measure up? How about we elect someone, both to mayor and aldersmen based on this criteria, not for some other crazy reason. You can't tell me their is no one in this city who doesn't have the skills to do this. Oh right, those people have R's after their names.
Dear Anonymous (why not identify yourself?)
First of all, we cannot compare government to a business. In as much as we might often like gov't to act more like a business in some ways, they are different beasts. As a matter of fact, the current and long time national trend has been to create city manager forms of government--and I have shown this on these pages. You may research it too if you wish.
The "problem" you refer to is really the same one I have discussed many times. We have mayoral candidates who run on campaigns of vision and leadership but end up having to be managers and administrators--because of our style of government.
How you can pass judgment on city council in one breath and then say in the other that you have never been to a city council meeting is...interesting. Dep't heads do come before the council mainly for budget hearings but at other times as well. The council has very little power and is headed by the mayor who is also the CEO. Again, I have discussed this many times on this blog. A city manager style will do much to reverse this and restore power to our alderman so they actually can do something.
As for measurable goals, that would be nice and I think that in this current form, if the mayor wants it, it happens. If he or she does not want it, it does not happen. HOWEVER, measurable goals could be the prime responsibility of a city manager and creating and meeting goals could be the focus of his or her contract with city council--and if he or she does not perform--then he or she is shown the door.
When I worked in city gov't I gave up trying to get the dep't. director to set goals, develop a mission statement etc because it would mean work and performance measures for her. Obviously since her boss (mayor and city administrator) did not care, she did not care. You see, all that matters now is whether the mayor and maybe if the city admin. like the director. In a city mgr system, it is likely to be more closely based on performance.
If you are going to engage in discussion here, it might help if you were to try to understand the issue firs--and perhaps actually attend some city council meetings.
Well, government and business should both be functioning organizations. The only difference between "non-profit" government and business is that non-profits push their profits up into expenses by running an inefficient organization. Additionally, Annapolispolitics.blogspot.com does a pretty good job covering meetings. I hope there is more to the govt than meetings. If you read his coverage, it seems to be a lot of fire fighting and long, irrelevant discussions on the topic de jeur. I don't know why going to meetings would help me understand the city manager role, mostly because that person wouldn't show up either. Adding another level of government and making it bigger just makes it less accountable and slower moving. How about we hold the dept heads accountable to the city government. A city manager can pass the buck as well as any other person in any organization. Making Annapolis city government bigger is a very bad idea.
Dear Anonymous Are your comments so controversial or inflammatory that you cannot identify yourself to our readers? Would you happen to be Dale--the mayor's boyfriend? Just curious. You sent in anonymous comments so I am of course just guessing. If you think that you are getting valued information by reading an occasional blog whose only interest seems to be in poking fun, than by all means, continue to believe that you are informed. However, I have published numerous points of view here and have referred to other sources as well.
It is pretty darn easy to watch council meetings on cable which I think would give a pretty accurate reflection of the actual meeting. Of course there is more than meetings to our gov't, but you are the one commenting about city council meetings so it is only fair to expect you should know something about that. Also, it is highly likely that the city manager would attend most if not all council meetings. If you are so concerned about holding department heads accountable, perhaps you should question why the current mayor and city administrator seem unable or unwilling to do that. Then you can reflect on why a city manager might be more inclined to do hold them accountable.
They are unwilling to do so because no one cares about the local elections and their positions are safe as long as they want them. No one seems to care the Eastport gets minimal city resources. No one questions why Arnett really isn't criticized. Alot of it has to do with the local newspaper. They seem to be content acting as an agent of the Democratic party. Print stories everyday about how bad the county government (ie Leopold) is, while ignoring city issues. I find it absolutely appalling that Moyer was able to ignore the city charter and create 2 new departments to get her friends lucrative city jobs, or the fine article you wrote about her "campaign raiser" that only people who stand to benefit from local govt give large amounts to. Maybe you could research the last time Newport held their city adm fired them.
Post a Comment