Keller's View: Replace Lakewood Mayor with City Manager

[marklingm]

Here's a question for you Matt: who are "City Hall & Friends"?

Charlie,

There is a gag order preventing me from engaging in any lively or edgy discussion that may offend those whose names cannot be spoken here, on "The Deck."

Nonetheless, as Helena Ravenclaw said, “If you have to ask, you'll never know. If you know, you need only ask.”

Matt

Since when have you been worried about offending anyone?

If you can't reveal who are "City Hall & Friends" then how is anyone to take you seriously when you write of "City Hall & Friends"?

Charlie,

I have never been worried about offending anyone - until it detracts from the discussion.

As Jim O'Bryan properly points out in his now edited post above, some folks are offended by being called "city manager huggers" and/or tossed into the "City Hall and Friends" camp. I get that.

And while Mr. O'Bryan woke up this morning wanting to turn this thread into a TMZ blog, there is little merit in offending anyone further.

So, without offending anyone, let's allow others to jump in and discuss the questions that you and Ed Favre raised because:

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?

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=12463

As I stated above, I really do value and appreciate what Mr. O’Bryan brings to the discussion on the topic of this thread. But it really isn’t fair that Mr. O’Bryan is being forced – by default - to answer everyone’s questions on this topic.

Is there anyone out there who will jump in and answer the questions raised by you and Mr. Favre - other than Mr. O'Bryan?

Anyone?

Matt

[Jim O'Bryan]

[quote="Matthew John Markling"]But it really isn’t fair that Mr. O’Bryan is being forced – by default - to answer everyone’s questions on this topic.

/quote]

Forced? If I am being "forced" it is not because of others that would come in.

At the very first meeting Dr. Keller wanted to start a discussion on the Deck. Mentioned it
at the very first meeting and asked about it.

What followed was less than inviting or based on facts.

And now that you have settled down, let's see what develops or not.

But standing and demanding people cross a line so you can yell at them is rarely the best
bait I have found out.

.

[Charlie Page]

The question was answered.

I must have missed the answer.

When you have a mayor acting as a city manager. You have just given the City Manager
and the mayor more power then outlined in the Charter.

There is no City Manager in the Charter. Is the Mayor exceeding his duties and authority as outlined in the Charter?

and you Charlie, confused over the idea of hiring the best you can afford let
me try this one more time.

I'm not confused....just asking questions. But not getting answers.

Let's say you have a small mom and pop business that takes in say $34,000,000 a
year, and you decide that with all the money being spent you MIGHT look at someone to run
it. Does it makes sense to look at as many resumes as possible, or wait until people throw
their names in a hat and they chose through popularity and name recognition?

So you take in $34 million, and a great business plan, and I understand this community
hates plans, is to wait and see who will throw their name in a hat, and then see who
turns out to support the person that NEVER does what he says pre-election. Well throw
in the various ways to slide "favorites" into spots through appointments, and I have to
believe we have indeed been lucky so far. When do we take running the city seriously?
$40 million? $50 million?

I'll ask this again...do we not have competent professionals in the various director level positions within City Hall who run the day to day stuff? What would another layer of administration add?

You take your trash to the curb each week, in the city almost never had trash on the
street so that an elected official could have a single bullet point in their campaign
literature. Something that had it not been for needing that bullet point would have
cost the average household $2.00 a year. I just do not see a competent manager
doing that. Though they could, they are humans.

Wow...it's like deja vu all over again. How many times do I have to repeat this?
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=11957&p=86965&hilit=trash#p86965

They have yet to produce the figures that the last garbage collection change netted any
savings what alone a boost to the general fund. As we have never demanded it, Social
Engineering Boy figures he too can say and do anything.

Jim - I posted this before but... http://www.lakewoodobserver.com/forum/v ... 279#p86279

In 2008, the department of Refuse and Recycling's actual spend was $4,486,000 with 43 employees. By contrast, in 2012 that department spent $2,897,000 and had 30 employees. So over the course of 4 years, the City reduced the cost by $1,589,000 and 13 people, with much of that coming in 2009 and 2010.

All the numbers above come from the City's financials. It's not BS. It's not replacing high cost people at the end of their career with low cost early career people. It's all from automating trash collection. Fewer people required to do the job and fewer injuries from not manually lifting an average of 63 tons of trash per day.

Even the average 63 tons of trash per day came from their financials (via calculation).

BTW, the City's financials are posted on the Finance page of the City's web site http://www.onelakewood.com/Finance/Default.aspx

[marklingm]

But it really isn’t fair that Mr. O’Bryan is being forced – by default - to answer everyone’s questions on this topic.

***

At the very first meeting Dr. Keller wanted to start a discussion on the Deck. Mentioned it at the very first meeting and asked about it.

What followed was less than inviting or based on facts.

And now that you have settled down, let's see what develops or not.

But standing and demanding people cross a line so you can yell at them is rarely the best bait I have found out.

Okay, Jimmy, you and Steve Davis have both stated - on multiple times - that my comments and positions on this issue have not been based on facts.

Pursuant to your request, I stood down.

Now, it was out of respect for you and this Project that I stood down.

I stood down not as "bait" but because I understand that some folks need calmer waters in which to tread.

I will allow you to marginalize me and call me crazy if that brings folks into the conversation. I'll take one for the team.

But I'm done with you and Mr. Davis stating that my comments and positions on this issue have not been based on facts.

I suggest that you and Mr. Davis should be done with those statements as well.

Wow!

I really did wake up this morning to find myself on TMZ.

Matt

[marklingm]

When you have a mayor acting as a city manager. You have just given the City Manager and the mayor more power then outlined in the Charter.

There is no City Manager in the Charter. Is the Mayor exceeding his duties and authority as outlined in the Charter?

Charlie,

That's my point.

Why has this city manager discussion been tied only to the city charter discussion?

I know it's been said again and again and again, but:

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?

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=12463

Matt

[Gary Rice]

OK you guys...

Let's back up here for a minute....

You're all good people with good points to make, so don't make me dig out my old detention pad from the teaching days. I don't want anyone here to have to stay after school.

Look, having a Political Science degree, I learned more about the city manager form of government than I ever wanted to, back in college. There are pros and cons to the concept to be sure. Given a perfect world, the city manager model is a very valid and effective form of governance.

Still, Mr. Markling's cautionary points are spot-on as well. Anything that can potentially move governance farther away from the electorate's decision-making process (the ballot box) should be viewed with great caution in America. Trains indeed may seemingly run on time better in a dictatorship, and people may indeed seemingly look better in their brown uniforms in that same environment, but what's lost can be pretty significant too.

Not saying that a city manager is a dictatorship of course. The dual question would be whether a city manager form of government might be less democratic or more cost-effective, and that is one that I believe to be worth examining.

America intentionally was designed to use un-trained civilian leadership in both our legislative and executive branches. That leadership was to come directly from the people, and would indeed return to the people when their term of office was over. A mayor can be voted out of office, or removed for just cause, without huge salaries and buy-outs to worry about. Actually, even in the judicial branch, I seem to recall that there are places still in America where a person can run for justice of the peace without having special training of any kind. (That may have changed since I studied about it, I'm not sure)

Mr. O'Bryan's point about the schools and other governmental entities, like school boards, using a form of city manager (i.e. school superintendents) is also well taken, but there are differences that should be explored and thoroughly understood before introducing the city manager to a city the size of Lakewood's. From my understanding, a city manager system can be effective with larger cities, but in a city the size of ours?

In any case, perhaps it's a bit cold here yet for a banjo sing-a-long, but at least we could start thinking about it...

Back to the banjo...

[Jim O'Bryan]

When you have a mayor acting as a city manager. You have just given the City Manager and the mayor more power then outlined in the Charter.

There is no City Manager in the Charter. Is the Mayor exceeding his duties and authority as outlined in the Charter?

Charlie,

That's my point.

Why has this city manager discussion been tied only to the city charter discussion?

I know it's been said again and again and again, but:

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?

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=12463

Matt

Ahhhhhhh, these are easy questions to answer.

These are the low hanging fruit even a fool like I can answer.

Why now?
Well, the way the city is run is spelled out in the Charter, so now would seem like an
opportune time to talk about it. Of course if "the fix was in" you would have thought the
minions would have pounded it into our heads daily, like they have on other topics.

Who brought it up?
Well at the first meeting it was brought up as "If we look at other forms of government..."
as a way to not repeat the problems of the last review, which was rewrite the charter, then
think about it, and have to do it all over again.

Why?
Well Dr. Larry Keller, the facilitator, and Stephen Davis, who has been on two other reviews
had mentioned "City Manager" was on the last review, and turned down, but it might be
worth reviewing IF you are thinking of changing forms of government.

My take, as I have said before. Dr. Larry Keller who facilitates these reviews all over is
a fan of City Managers. Though he can argue either side depending on the community.
Stephen Davis is a total fan of City Managers. FACTS

It only makes sense for them to bring it up. As others have said, no not at this time. This
is what Charter Reviews do. HOWEVER no one has indicated to me the FIX is in. And if it
was there are sure better ways to do it then through the Charter Review. If for no other
reason than it goes to a REAL election.

Again, the biggest real difference I see in this city is are you for Competent Management
or prefer the let's wait and see who turns up management.

No matter, running a half ass version of both Little Rascal style is hardly the answer.

As my esteemed college and friend says, there are many things that need to be changed
in the charter. EVERYONE AGREES, it seems that those on the Charter Review feel the
same way, as they have opted for talking to department heads instead of the City Manager
of fill in city here. Even those that I know are pro-city manager stated, "Well then let's
work from the back to the front." Not because that is where the city manager clause is, but
because it needs the most work for the current form of government.

So let me get this straight, Matt, Charlie, Ed whoever...
You prefer friendship lottery over known competent management?

.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Okay, Jimmy, you and Steve Davis have both stated - on multiple times - that my comments and positions on this issue have not been based on facts.

I'm on deadline so I will make it brief Matt.

to paraphrase, "The fix is in"

I do not believe it to be true, and I would say it is much harder this time than in the past.

"I am pro-city manager."

I am not, I am willing to look at it, and see how it might work here.

To paraphrase "They are puppets"

I do not see that as true and would love to see something anything backing your
allegations about these people backed up.

Matt, I see this as I do the Tea Party, much shouting not much substance, scare off anyone
willing to talk about it, climb the shit pile you made and declare yourself winners of????
Better than??? Somehow justified???

Charlie has good questions as does Ed, both come from bias, and it would be great to the
conversation going, but I believe some have not been made to feel welcomed, that is
always too bad.

Not feeling welcomed is far different from crying, and taking your ball and going home.

FWIW

.

[marklingm]

Gary,

Your analysis is perfect.

And your banjo is music to my ears.

Matt

[Jim O'Bryan]

OK you guys...

Look, having a Political Science degree, I learned more about the city manager form of government than I ever wanted to, back in college. There are pros and cons to the concept to be sure. Given a perfect world, the city manager model is a very valid and effective form of governance.

Still, Mr. Markling's cautionary points are spot-on as well. Anything that can potentially move governance farther away from the electorate's decision-making process (the ballot box) should be viewed with great caution in America. Trains indeed may seemingly run on time better in a dictatorship, and people may indeed seemingly look better in their brown uniforms in that same environment, but what's lost can be pretty significant too.


Mr. O'Bryan's point about the schools and other governmental entities, like school boards, using a form of city manager (i.e. school superintendents) is also well taken, but there are differences that should be explored and thoroughly understood before introducing the city manager to a city the size of Lakewood's. From my understanding, a city manager system can be effective with larger cities, but in a city the size of ours?

In any case, perhaps it's a bit cold here yet for a banjo sing-a-long, but at least we could start thinking about it...

Back to the banjo...

Gary,

I agree we should talk about it and learn, then decide.

The idea that you have less control over a city manager than a mayor, is simply not true.
The checks and balances once again come into play, and your ability to complain, does
not diminish, and your ability to hold council members accountable has increased. The
"average human" interacts with council members not mayors. If they are skipping over
councilman, then that should be addressed through the ballot box.

What if, we had all read this wrong, as I think many have, and thought of "City Managers"
as a mayor? I think this is the biggest mistake most think of when looking at this. Of all
the people discussing this Matt probably knows the most, if we could settle him down an
talk about the Charter as he sees problems.

But over here in the City Manager thread, I would love to look at it. I really do not know
many people that cannot see good and bad in both.

Another misunderstanding is Charlie's comment about pay and golden parachutes. From
the way I read it most City Managers work without contracts. This is one reason they get
more than a mayor. Of course another reason is because they are professionals and have
history in successfully running cities. The others are working at McDonald's.

No parachute, nothing more than the I am here as long as I make you happy. Which is
making 7 members of council happy, not one lone person, and it is far easier to heat up
a council member and remove them, than a mayor. A question I ask is how many council
members do you have to remove before they fire the city manager? I am thinking 1 tops.

So it would seem, the cheaper, safer, more manageable way for a community to go. But
we have been lucky so far, and maybe our luck never runs out.

Right Matt? (I know you love it when Gary does this)

.

[marklingm]

Right Matt? (I know you love it when Gary does this)

As I stated above:

Gary,

Your analysis is perfect.

And your banjo is music to my ears.

Matt

Again, thank you, Gary.

[Charlie Page]

Another misunderstanding is Charlie's comment about pay and golden parachutes. From
the way I read it most City Managers work without contracts. This is one reason they get
more than a mayor. Of course another reason is because they are professionals and have
history in successfully running cities. The others are working at McDonald's.

Most city managers do have contracts. Contracts spell out the terms of pay, work hours, benefits, perks, etc. You'd be nuts to work without one.

Most have a salary of 120-150k, 400-500 per month car allowance, city pays for civic/professional memberships, relocation dollars, 4-5 weeks vacation, severance, etc.

http://www.cleveland.com/cleveland-heig ... il_42.html

CLEVELAND HEIGHTS -- City Council on July 15 officially appointed Tanisha Briley to the long-vacant city manager position effective Aug. 1, and unanimously approved an employment agreement that will pay the soon-to-be-former Davenport, IA, assistant city administrator $140,000 annually.

The city announced Briley's selection for the job last month. Additional provisions of her at-will contract include:
•the city will pay an annual contribution of 6 percent of Briley's salary toward her retirement
•no less than four weeks paid vacation per year
•a city vehicle
•a total of $8,000 for relocation costs

[Gary Rice]

Good points all here, and I appreciate the discussion, as well as the give and take.

I appreciate the kind words too, Mr. Markling. Thank you.

Mr. O'Bryan, you know, and we're talked about this many times...What do you NOT put out there for this city? Thank you for that.

That said, I am not at all certain that Lakewood is a large enough town to warrant a city manager. Here, by charter, the Mayor's office is a fairly powerful one. He or she directly oversees all departments, and each of those has their own administrators and direct accountability.

I would suggest, and I believe that history has borne this out: Lakewood has functioned pretty well, no matter who the mayor has been. There's a fair amount of virtual "autopilot governance" going on in this municipality, as far as a mayor's duties would be concerned.

Not that the Mayor sits around for half a day flying paper airplanes. (although whether plastic drone airplanes may count could be another question )

Seriously, Mayor Summers has brought professional business experience to the Office of the Mayor. I have personally witnessed his direct and concerned involvement with residents in their times of severe crisis, and I've seen his compassionate, personal, and proactive involvement numerous times in other ways, working for the benefit of our city.

I do not write this about him as a political endorsement, nor do I have any hidden agenda regarding any of this. I just think that we've had some great people in that office, and in this town, who have tried to make things better.

Actually, I sit here this evening marveling at the great minds who care enough about Lakewood to step forward and be a part of it. Mr. Markling, Mr. O'Bryan, Mr. Davis, Mr. Page, and so many others....You are all my heroes. So are you, Mayor Summers.

Disagree? Of course, but care? You betcha!

Without a doubt.

Back to the banjo...

[Bill Trentel]

I believe that the Charter review is a worthwhile and necessary exercise and from the information reported here it sounds as if they are looking to do a thorough review, time will tell. But the history of these commissions in Lakewood (at least the most recent) is that they make many recommendation but the council chooses to put very little on the ballot. Basic house keeping.

I regards to the city manager aspect, the only justification I've seen sited in this discussion is that there is fear that we will be unable to elect a proper mayor from within our borders, which implies that the electorate is to stupid to elect the right person or all we have is incompetent boobs living in Lakewood. I fail to see how hiring a "professional" city manager guarantees competency. It definitely guarantees that city hall will have less of a reason to be responsive to the citizens, since the manager and his staff will only need to please the council.
For those who know-longer trust the Lakewood voters to make the right choices, how can you have faith that our elected council can hire a superior manager? Aren't they elected from the same pool of incompetent boobs we might be electing a mayor from? Of course it will be much easier for seven (or whatever the number) council members to be influenced into hiring a particular person then to have that person on the ballot and elected. Not that I have any indication that this is anyones plans.

I can't help but seen all the negative parallels between a city manager form of government and how our city school management is structured and executed.

Bill

[Michael Deneen]

For many of the reasons already stated, I am not an advocate of the City Manager concept.

However, there is a reasonable concern about qualified candidates not running for the office in the future.

The amount of time and money necessary to run for citywide office has become very large....it is even very expensive to run for a Ward council seat.
This burden discourages a lot of "normal folks" from running.
I also think the increasingly toxic nature of national politics has played a minor role...many folks have simply become jaded and cynical.

Anyone willing to commit the time (both in direct campaigning and in fundraising) to campaign is likely an aggressive aspiring politicians who wants to use the city as a stepping stone to run for a "larger" office.
This leads to short-term thinking, because noone wants to make a decision that can be used against them in a future TV ad.