Appointed vs. elected: You can’t have it both ways
Last Thursday (June 4) Eric Kapke, the governance committee had decided against a city council/city manager form of government because they believed that a hired city manager would be less accountable to the people than an elected mayor would. In the same report, the committee agreed to allow the mayor to appoint a city comptroller to take over the treasurer’s duties of the currently elected clerk-treasurer.
In Saturday’s Daily Journal, current Clerk-Treasurer Jeannine Meyers stated the merger group should consider applying the same logic to both positions. Meyers says an elected clerk-treasurer is a watchdog who is responsible for the taxpayers’ money and accountable to the taxpayer.
Meyers has a valid point. The merger committee, if it is going to uphold its stated mission of creating to “create an efficient, effective, accountable and representative government” cannot on one hand claim an appointed city manager is not responsive to the citizens while on the other hand claim an official appointed solely by the mayor is responsive to the citizens.
Which is it governance committee, you cannot have it both ways.
No related posts.
2 Responses to “Appointed vs. elected: You can’t have it both ways”
What about a hybrid system that includes a mayor and a city manager? Many existing communities have this type of structure. Was it even considered here? Was any research done?
Under this scenario, the City Council still holds the purse strings and approves the budget, the Mayor establishes the policies and priorities for city governance, but the full time management and day to day business operations of city adminisration would be left to a professional city manager with a degree in public management. You still have the political accountability that comes with an elected Mayor who is setting political priorities for the administration, but also benefit from the professionalism that comes with a city manager. The problem that is often associated with elected Mayors is that political acumen does not always translate into being a good administrator. The reality is that 80-90% of what a city does on a day-to-day basis does not change with a new Mayor. The new Mayor may provide a new direction on a few things, but if the Mayor is not a good administrator other services can seriously suffer. A change in administration under a traditional elected Mayor model can result in a huge loss of institutional knowledge as key political appointees flee the city administration with the out-going mayor. A professional city manager, if instituted properly, should be able to survive changes in the political scene and provide stability in a professionally adimistered city and leadership in implementing the policy priorities established by the elected Mayor.
Comment made on July 1st, 2009 at 5:55 pmHiring more people costs more money. We need to keep it small and Incorporate so we can decide the size of OUR Government.
Comment made on July 3rd, 2009 at 1:03 amLeave a Comment