Annapolis Capital Punishment

Congratulations to our city which was recognized for being "digitally advanced" an award that examines "how cities use technology to create a seamless environment between local government and constituents. Annapolis was the only city of any size in Maryland to win an award." I learned this from a city news release in which Mayor Moyer says, “This award is an indication that Annapolis’s priorities continue to be its citizens and the fact we offer newer technologies that allow them to voice their opinions and concerns....Our new blog, Lets Talk Annapolis, is a good example of our commitment to keep the line of communications open."
I believe that we have made great strides with our web-site and other electronic communications, much to the credit of city employees Paul Thorn and Inna Young, who are mentioned in the news release. However....(and you knew that was coming...) is the Let's Talk Annapolis blog really an example of anything besides the mayor pushing her own agenda? The blog has been dormant for months, if not years and only recently got active--just so the mayor could use it to oppose the various amendments calling for a city manager style of government--remember that issue?

So, let's visit Let's Talk....The mayor begins:

This issue of the City Manager form of government has surfaced at every city election for the last 20 years. I’m not sure how much the public really understands about the changes that are being proposed.

She is saying this is just an election-year ploy and that this is that same thing...again. She is just playing politics, plain and simple. She is not sure how much the public understands, therefore it is up to her to educate her great unwashed masses of constituents. It is Squawk such as this that reinforces the need for more responsible, transparent and professional government--and her reactionary rhetoric keeps reinforcing the idea that the initiative is about her--which it was not originally.

Mayor Moyer says:
If the proposed changes were to ever take effect, the ultimate authority for budget making and hiring and firing of City staff would rest with a non-elected person. In fact, under the proposed system, elected representatives are precluded from interfacing with a department head.

That is more rhetoric designed to scare us, but only rhetoric. The City council is currently precluded from giving orders to department heads but not from interacting with them. My understanding is that what will change is that the chief executive officer of the city will be answerable to all of city council, whereas now, that office is either the mayor answerable only to his or her self or the city administrator--answerable only to the mayor (as in Ellen O Moyer--get it???) As one person said before city council the other night--there is a big difference between proposing a budget and approving it. Approval will continue to rest with the council. And I don;t believe anything will keep an alderman from "interfacing with a department head."

The mayor writes:

Those in favor of the City Manager form of government often raise the idea that the City needs a “professional” government. The current City Administrator handles the day-to-day functions of the City, meeting weekly with staff committees on Land Use, Capital Projects and Public Works; has served as an administrator for the County Executive and a Director of a State agency.The Director of DNEP has been a City Administrator and a City Manager. Four of our Department Directors have law degrees; several have advanced degrees in Business Management. All Directors have won awards for themselves or their departments.In terms of experience, credentials and dedication to public service, I will stack current City staff up against any local government, city or county, in the state.

The current city administrator, Bob Agee (can you say sinecure?) does little that is evident, except the mayor's bidding, acting as her chief of staff, though he is paid less than the people he supervises and seems to spend a lot of time on sister city programs. My experience with him as a city employee and resident is less than satisfactory. Of the various and many people occupying that position, most have not been engaged, involved or managerial. I know. I saw it firsthand.

As for the head of DNEP, a department she created at great expense so we the taxpayers could pay this person a big salary and bring him back here from Newport where he indeed was, I say was, City Manager. The mayor did not say that his experience as city administrator was here! Besides that, we are talking about a city manager for this city, not a department head AND we want to see management for results, with goals and milestones and indicators. Degrees and experience are one thing, but results are another.

Possession of a law degree does not guarantee managerial or administrative talent. Possession of a law degree among government professionals is not terribly unusual--nor is it terribly relevant or indicative of anything special. I ask how many of them have advanced degrees in finance or public administration? How many people in our entire government other than the capable Finance Director Tim Elliott really understand our finances and budget inside and out? That is the big issue which the mayor avoids. There is no doubt that we have many capable, dedicated and professional employees. However, there is a great deal of doubt about how they perform as managers or administrators. Not only that, we want to see them manage and see our elected officials lead. That is the issue.

Mayor Moyer asks, Is now the time to deny the residents of our City the same privilege of knowing who is to be held accountable for successes and failures?

My answer is THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION. We the people are denied what is rightfully ours when the office of the mayor becomes too powerful. And now is the right time to change things. And so says the Eastport Civic Ass'n, Eastport Business Ass'n, Ward One Resident's Association and Annapolis Business Association--as well as four aldermen, among many others. I don't exactly feel privileged to know who is accountable for our successes and failures in the last seven years, but I know that the person who holds that office can only be "fired" by shareholders every four years. We propose a system that will allow the board (as in city council)to fire such a person at will. Please explain how that denies anything to we the voters? I think it gives us more power--and gives our direct elected aldermen and alderwomen more power--power to represent us.

And finally, the mayor never directly deals with the issue of checks and balances and separation of powers. Why should our mayor serve as executive and board chair? That is the big issue. A city manager style of government will consolidate policy and leadership into a reinvigorated council which will derive more power and directly oversee day-to-day management through a contracted city manager.Anybody who knows a lot about this topic will argue that a certified city manager will be more highly qualified to serve that our current mayor or city administrator. That person will be more able to determine the suitability of hiring or firing a department head than is our mayor or city administrator. And that person will not be under the direct control of the mayor. He or she will be more or less insulated from political machinations and will be more likely to make sound decisions rather than decisions based on political concerns,

So far, the blog has received one reader comment shown below:

city manager By dale100 :: Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 :: 4pm

"Are we to assume that there is a codified description of the change that we are asked to comment on? As I understand it to date, there is no single option for us to consider. I believe that the pertinent question for the people today is: what is wrong with the current administration and if there is, how should it be changed. Once the first question is answered, we have a rational dialog, until then, we are tilting windmills. dale"

Are we to assume that Dale is none other than the mayor's boyfriend? Ignoring the Quixotic analogy and the many typos and grammatical errors, I will say that it's pretty easy to answer what is wrong with the current administration, but that's not the issue. The mayor keeps acting as if these initiatives are some kind of attack on her--but that is only partially correct. However, the more she rants and squawks and pounds on it--and on those of us who she opposes--the more this will become a referendum about her--but that was never the intent. I don't expect her to "get" that but in the meantime, this debate remains fun and interesting.


See the mayor;s blog at: Let's Squawk


Please send comments,subscribe,share with your friends,and support our sponsors. Join us at Ahh Coffee almost every Thursday from 8-9 am.