Edward Favre wrote:I'd like to hear why the City Manager conversation is being put forth in the first place. What is the problem(s)? Who advocates it?
(PS to Jim: Your comments about the Lincoln/Grant are inaccurate, however that is a different conversation from this one.)
Ed
The conversation is coming from many sources.
In the case the other night, and I am sure you understand this. The last two Charter Reviews
looked into other forms of government. The last one they actually dove into it, though at the
onset they really wanted to clean up the charter so that it became a manageable document.*
More than halfway through they came up with the thought of "City Manager" and that
caused them a ton more work, than needed, as the rules over council, a mayor if even
needed, and other rules would have to be completely rewritten. That Charter review which
featured Steve Davis and Larry Keller. Submitted two Charters to council neither was
adopted or put on the ballot. The only thing that has been adopted by council, and we
all voted on was the way Council is paid.
So Larry Keller after warning them that nothing could come from their 6 months of
meeting said. We might want to consider that first to either define workload or cut down
on workload and wasting time. This makes sense to explain when defining how often they
meet and where. It is also fair to tell them that you can take the easy road, not changing
government, or the hard road, TRYING to change the government. Neither may pay off.
Tom Wagner, one of the group, asked if there was a way, they could work with council to
make sure things got done they were suggesting. Which made total sense after hearing
for 20 minutes how nothing was adopted. Both Kevin Butler and Mary Louise made it
understood, that is not what this commission is for. It is to recommend items to council
and then council to decide what if anything goes for a vote.
While Tom Brown, Chairman for the group did offer public input, I see the group more as
a commission being able to call people in. If you are looking at a law why not hear from
those affected. Certainly it is open to the public, but depending on how they decide to
proceed it could be a pretty much a "paint drying moment." If they break into committees
then you have 3,4,6 meetings to attend, all on Monday.
Yesterday, I spoke with Larry Keller at Micro Center, Steve Davis, and Mary Louise Madigan
all are looking forward to working with the Observer on transparency, discussion, and
keeping residents up to speed. Peter and I will be covering though we are looking for more
people to help, as if they break up into smaller groups it could be needed.
Tomorrow, Larry will be giving a short, 3 hour overview of forms of government, and who
does what where.
EVEN if the FIX is in, this group is locked in, they will not be popping new members in and
out, nor with the Council, or Mayor being changing targets or reason for doing it. The reson
and the task is spelled out, in stone, and approved by voters.
I would say the standards of this community have decided that "City Manager" serves
them best now. They certainly do not need someone like me, pro-residents, anti-crappy
development coming in and running, or even talking about what could be better. As I found
out during the last election, many of the movers and shakers in this town are afraid of
damn near anything that could cause ripples of any form.
Ed, to compare the charade known as Phase III with this Charter is a huge disservice for
this commission, and the great cast of actors in Phase III as well. I will discuss this
anytime, anywhere with anyone. But as you guys have 2 levies, and 1 bond issue
approved I am sure for all it is better to look forward than backwards. Right?
.
