Here are some good sources of information about the city manager topic being debated right here and right now. The first piece comes from Citizens for a Better Annapolis, which is spearheaded by Trudy McFall, an active (though not official) candidate for mayor. This new report shows that it is a common, perhaps increasingly common form of government and that it has been discussed, debated and analyzed in Annapolis for a long time. This is despite the protestation of the mayor that she needs to officially hold a series of informal hearings on it, and from her closest council supporter that we should continue to study the issue.
See here:CITY
Meanwhile, this is being discussed in Frederick, MD. The writer notes that while Frederick's population is much greater than that of Annapolis, it's government is much smaller. I ask if you have noticed how active and vibrant its downtown seems to be? See: Frederick News Post
I will again refer you to other posts I have written about concerning this issue:
Oct 27, 2008
The issue of restructuring our government, perhaps to become a city manager form of government, has been seriously studied and discussed since before Ellen was mayor. Alderman Israel, and then Alderman Arnett, each drafted different ...
Oct 18, 2008
In unleashing her latest salvo against the charter amendment considering a city manager form of government, our legislative and executive head of government now invites citizens to talk about this. She again calls her get-togethers ...
Jul 23, 2008
And finally--a city manager form of government? Something we should consider. Of course CP has been urging this for years and made it a top campaign priority when running for alderman. People are finally beginning to see the value of ...
This is a table I created to show the differences between our current style and what a new structure could be like. The best way to ensure professional and expert management of the day-to-day activities of our large and complex bureaucracy is to hire professionals who manage well and are managed well. We must explore if a City Manager is the best way to do this and I hope to spur interest in revisiting the report created by a charter commission some years ago which recommended similar changes.
A City Manager style of government has disadvantages as well, but I believe this issue is so important that we must get started on it in 2007.
One major difference between our current system and a CIty Manager style is that rather than having the Mayor choose a City Administrator, the entire Council, including the Mayor, will choose a City Manager. With professional credentials, sworn adherence to ethics and standards, and experience as a City Manager or perhaps as an Assistant City Manager in a much larger city, the new City Manager will come to work without any political ties. I would like a City Manager to set up performance measures and policies to ensure accountability. By focusing on daily operations of government, the Mayor and City Council can then attend to budget, policy and legislative issues.
We must create a process, that from the very beginning, will ensure buy-in from all parties and ensure action toward its conclusion.
The Strong Mayor Versus Weak Mayor Form of Government
| What We Have Now | What We Might Consider Having |
| Mayor chairs city council | Mayor chairs city council |
| Mayor elected citywide | Mayor elected citywide |
| Mayor hires City Administrator based on Mayor's interest and preferences and he or she serves at the pleasure of the Mayor. | City Council hires City Manager based on professional credentials and experience after a nationwide search and majority vote. City Manager serves at pleasure of City Council. |
| City Administrator earns less than employees he or she supposedly supervises, but in what does this result, other than providing an ostensible chief of staff to the Mayor? | City Manager will require a higher salary yet provide more supervision, oversight, authority and a more managerial link to City Council. |
| Mayor solely decides whether to dismiss City Administrator for whatever reason.
City Administrator is able to retain position even if exempt employees (department heads, police chief etc.) do not perform according to requirements. | City Council holds City Administrator accountable through a contract based on performance measures and evaluations.
City Manager able to retain position only if performing according to contract, which will require exempt employees (department heads, police chief etc.) to also perform according to standard.
|
| Mayor can choose department heads, create new positions, and place political allies in these positions. Mayor and City Administrator are supposed to oversee city departments, but with varying regularity or consistency. Exempt employees are not hired or fired based on performance standards. Everything is politicized.
| City Manager hires and fires all exempt employees based on qualifications and not political preferences. City Manager oversees city departments with consistency and regularity because his or her job depends on meeting performance criteria and because of the standards and ethics sworn to by certified city managers.
|
| Only Mayor or City Administrator can interfere with or provide oversight or supervision directly to city departments. City Council is not necessarily informed of or properly communicated with in regard to activities and operations. | Only City Manager can interfere with or provide oversight or supervision directly to city departments. However, since the City Manager answers directly to the nine City Council members, communication and involvement, if indirect, is at least much closer to being guaranteed. |
| Non-performing officials can remain in office for years, even if not competent. Or, we see a major debacle (or a major success) and nobody will necessarily get fired (or promoted or rewarded). | Non-performing officials are more easily relieved of duties because of accountability and performance standards, and are more likely to be promoted or rewarded when so deserved. |
| Today, the Board (i.e., City Council) cannot fire the CEO (the Mayor). Only the shareholders (voters) can do this, and only every four years. | A majority of the nine Board members elected by the shareholders can fire and replace the CEO at any time. |
In other words, we lessen the mayoral executive and legislative stranglehold on city government, return power to the directly elected council, ensure professional qualifications to really MANAGE and allow mayor and council to deliberate and legislate. And finally, ever since we have had a city administrator, have you ever known the person in that office or what he did? If there is a city manager, he or she will be the one in charge and you won't be able to miss that person.
If that is not enough, try the International City Management Association at:
ICMAMeanwhile, once you have read through all this and debated and discussed it for twenty years and attended all the mayor's "Less Action, More Talk" workshops, you can vote about it in our current poll--at the right column....or just forget all the facts and just vote anyhow....heck--it's just a non-random, self-selecting, non-scientific poll..but it's fun.
Please send comments,subscribe,share with your friends,and support our sponsors. Join us at Ahh Coffee almost every Thursday from 8-9 am.
