Alderman Ross Arnett and Ward One President Smith on City Manager Hearing....Monday Night!!! ~ Annapolis Capital Punishment
1:

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Alderman Ross Arnett and Ward One President Smith on City Manager Hearing....Monday Night!!!

The first portion of this long post comes from Ross Arnett and concerns his plans for voting at the hearing Jan 26 at 7:00 pm, in City Council chambers:

CA-04-08 Council - Manager Form of Government [Arnett, Israel]
(As amended and revised by Rules & City Gov’t Committee) - For the purpose of amending the Charter of the City of Annapolis to change the structure of the City government to a council – manager form of government; defining the office of city manager, including appointment/termination powers; providing for the non-interference by the Mayor and Aldermen with the City Manager in the performance of his duties; establishing the City Manager as a position within the exempt service; and, redefining the powers and duties of the Office of the Mayor. Arnett Notes: This is an amendment to the City Charter to move us to a Council Manager form of government. In my view this will provide day to day professional management of the City and provide some separation of powers between the executive and policy branches of government.

CA-06-08 City Manager Form of Government II [Cordle] - For the purpose of clarifying the role of the City Manager as chief administrative officer; enhancing the supervisory powers of City Manager with respect to departmental directors; and, providing that the dismissal of the City Manager must be approved by the mayor.
Arnett Notes: This amendment does not change our form of government, it merely restates the current City Administrator position.

The second portion comes from Doug Smith, President of Ward One Association, which is a more detailed comparison of the city manager proposals that will be discussed at the public hearing. (We thank Doug for this excellent synopsis. CP's Note are in bold. )

A number of people have asked for a quick comparison of the Arnett/ Israel legislation (Charter Amendment CA-04-08) vs. the Cordle bill, (CA -06-08). These two bills are as different at night and day. Arnett/ Israel establishes a professional city manager, reporting to the full city council.
The Cordle bill renames the current position of city administrator to the title of 'city manager'. In Cordle's bill, 99% of the power is still concentrated in the office of the mayor.

Some examples:
In Cordle's bill, the 'city manager' reports solely to the mayor; the mayor is CEO of the city, the mayor supervises the 'city manager' and sets his/ her salary; the mayor approves all department head hiring; the mayor approves all department head salaries; the mayor can direct the work of department heads by 'working through' the 'city manager'; the 'city manager' is limited to 'participation' in the preparation of the budget;

In essence, the Cordle bill makes our current situation worse - the 'city manager' is an executive secretary to the mayor. If there was any question who has the power, this language spells it out: the mayor is in charge of everything and can override any decision made by the 'city manager'. Any candidate considering this job would realize this is political position. A candidate would know that keeping their job depends 100% on keeping the mayor happy. Most likely the 'city manager' would be fired when the mayor leaves office, as the next mayor will want to hire his own executive secretary. This bill should be defeated. (I agree...it's like lipstick on a pig)

In contrast, the Arnett/Israel bill is modeled on a successful structure that is documented by the ICMA (International City-County Manager Association). ICMA spells out four very clear foundation principles for the role of city manager.

1. Appointment - a city manager is hired on a majority vote of city council - the mayor plus aldermen. Each Alderman (your representative) would have a vote on who gets hired in the first place. The city manager would be hired on professional ability, not political loyalty. And by reporting to the city council, the city manager has to serve the entire community - all wards- equally. (This returns power to the council and we the people and levels the playing field.)

2. Policy - the city manager would have direct responsibility for policy formulation (the city council would still have final approval authority). The whole point in hiring a professional is to bring ideas for better government into the policy discussion. (There are many more reasons as well. For starters, a true city manager is not only highly experienced but sworn and certified to uphold professional ethics.)

3. Budget - the city manager would prepare the budget (budget approval still rests with city council). Spending requests always exceed available funds. The city manager would provide options for city council to consider. If we don't have enough money to do everything, wouldn't it be nice to have professional advice on what priorities should come first? The city manager, based on experience, may also recommend economies that would reduce the operating cost of the city and stretch our dollars further.

Once Approved, the city manager implements the budget. This puts a professional manager in charge of operations. This also gets the mayor out of the weeds so the mayor can focus on the long-term strategic needs of the city. We need a visionary mayor who deals with issues such as City Dock, public housing, public safety, parking, etc. Let the city manager worry about the trash pick up schedule or sidewalk repair. (Remember--there is a big difference between proposing a budget and approving it. In one sense, proposing it is a managerial and businesslike process. It is not a done deal. Approving it is both and also political. That is a done deal--and that's what the city manager gets. Today, the mayor has enormous power in the budget process and in effect-it becomes his or her budget.)

4. Appointing Authority. The city manager has true management responsibility for city departments. He would hire, fire and set compensation for department heads. Department heads would know the city manager is their direct supervisor. (Think we need some changes in that regard? Look what it took to remove the police chief! Hopefully the new city manager will ask all political appointees for their resignation on day one...that does not mean he or she will accept all of them, but it does mean that the executive branch will be returned to a new level of managerial oversight. Who knows--it might even mean the air conditioners on our buses will get fixed!)

One final comment: A professional city manager, reporting to the full city council would be making sound business recommendations to the council. I emphasize the word 'business'.

It is absolutely appropriate for the mayor to be the political leader of the city. But when it comes to operating decisions, or leases of public property (ex: market house, or lease of city dock for an event), you would want the lease to provide proper legal and financial safe guards for the city. Understanding these proper safe guards and sound legal practices are the expertise of the city manager - and should not be expected from the mayor. In addition, you would not want these business decisions to be influenced by political affiliations or campaign contributions. (The city manager is almost if not completely immune to political considerations. He or she is a manager. The mayor is the leader. The manager has to answer to the council, which will include the mayor. It would take enormous political pressure from a lot of council members to influence him or her. That's where we the people come in too. However, in our current style, all it takes are the whims of one person...)

I would encourage everyone with views on the above legislation, either pro or con, should speak up at the Jan 26 public hearing. (Absolutely! This is far reaching legislation that will affect everything we do in this city from now on. Please do a search of the many posts on this site concerning this amendment..see the search box to the right)

Doug Smith

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.

6 Comments:

Anonymous said...

So if there is a city manager style of government there is no point in having a mayoral election next year.

Paul Foer said...

Dear Anonymous:

Perhaps you should pose a similar question to the thousands of mayors in cities representing tens of millions of people (hundreds of millions?) that also have city managers. Maybe you should pose the question to the alderman and mayoral candidates who support this. Please do your homework and get back to me. When you have a useful or reasoned comment or some facts that are worth publishing, perhaps we'll publish it and even provide some comments. Until then, go back to bed. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Paul,
I am pissed and I need to tell someone. What the hell is up with the fools who operate the market house ? What motivated the original local vendors to vacate ? Did they leave on their own accord, or were they encourage to do so by exponentially increases rents ? Were they no longer making money ?

I went downtown the other day ( I heard Downtown was devoid of weekday tourists) camera in hand and sent a picture of the empty, soul-less Market House to my homies that have moved out of state. The next day an article appeared in the Crap-it-all which I forwarded to them.

They don't understand either and despite the attempts at explanations by the 'man' it still makes no common sense.

What would Bobby ( chicken man ) say ? What are the opinions of Al KAuffman ? The Cheese Lady ?

Paul Foer said...

Hey Joe...I wish I knew the answers. Near as I can tell, the Market was in need of serious renovations and the lease was up. Major changes were needed. The current tenants were given every opportunity to figure a way to get together and to stay after the renovations which had to happen. I blame the vendors at that point for not being able to figure out the best way to proceed. However, it quickly went south once the current administration made it worse and worse--and I am not sure the new leaseholders helped either. Then came the debacle with the HVAC which was total incompetence on everyone's part. I think there was no place for "the buck" to stop and then of course our mayor turned it into her favorite game--the blame game. Perhaps if there were a "market" Bob Woodward would write a book about it. The bottom line now is to stop the bleeding and fix it--physically, financially, legally and managerially. Not likely under the Moyer regime. Aldermen were in over their heads trying to understand what occurred from a construction/permitting/legal point of view and what was done under previous councils....Yet another reason why a city manager style of government is needed here.

As for Bobbie and Al and the many other former vendors there--and I spent a lot of money in there way back in the summer of 1979 when I ran a charter /dinner boat--who knows what they would say???? (And Bobby is never one to mince words--is he?)

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your response.

It seems to me, that the renovations were the responsibility of the landlord as guided by a city code.
The leaseholders were Small, local vendors, not necessarily gifted in the art of building maintenance. It is a shame none of them --besides the cheese shop lady--were vocal about their disgust with the transition.

Annapolis does not seem to know how to define itself.

Is it robust and full of soul as it once was ( Rookies, the old market house, Riordans and the soull survivor Chick-n-Ruth's) ? ; or is it greed driven --pursuing the big players like Banana Republic , the Gap, Burger King etc...?

If the Historic District can regulate what color drapes Capt. Doe can hang in his window, surely he should be as heavy handed with the Corporate Schmoes.

So many questions and not enough GOOD lawyers, writers, and journalist to get to the meat of the matter.

Paul Foer said...

Dear Schmoe/Joe:
I thought you were the same...nice to have you back. (How many CP's can there be? Are you also a "CP" by any chance?)
You wrote, "Annapolis does not seem to know how to define itself." Well, yes. How does a place define itself? We try and try and retry and somehow we struggle, so perhaps we are defined by our struggle.
There are at least a few good lawyers and writers and artists, but it would sure be nice if we could get paid more.

blogger templates | Make Money Online