The Observation Deck

Steve,

Thanks for the clarification.

Is it not the manager's responsibility to advise what policies and practices should be implemented to better manage the city, as that manager sees fit?

If the city manager comes to the table lacking an ideologically driven practice/methodology... then the brains lie not in the manager, but in council? How then does a manager/council system generate 'innovation' while simultaneously 'depoliticizing' the executive office if the council has not been hired as well?

After all, the city manager occupies a highly refined niche of graduate academic training.

What then is the role of council in the manager system? Does this role also change?

Dr. Keller,

Are you out there?

Dan,

Good post.

I think that the City Manager should probably offer some advice in areas of expertise or experience.

The City Manager's role, though, should be defined by City Council before and during the search and interview process. That role should then be reassessed annually, or as needed. It would be very important to get a good philosophical and experiential fit between our LAKEWOOD City Council and their hiree.

Steve

P.S. I've heard that Dr. Keller may be out of town.

Politics is not going away with a City Manager.

There is a social relationship in accountability between a Mayor and the people electing him/her that will change with a City Manager, perhaps for the better or perhaps for the worse.

Though some may not feel the social relationships that inform the politics of Mayor and Council are as effective as those imagined between a professional City Manager hired by Council, politics, that is to say, the acquisition and use of power, will not go away.

Politics is about persons, power and effects.

In Power: Its Forms, Bases and Uses, Dennis Wong writes: “Power is the capacity of some persons to produce intended and foreseen effects.â€Â￾

When citizens begin flexing “non-partisanâ€Â￾ muscle are all the effects “intended and foreseen?â€Â￾

I doubt that. There are unintended consequences that follow from any use of power and release of energy.

Likewise any conversion of political assets will release new political energies.

I would suggest further that the “non-partisanâ€Â￾ conversion of primary political assets resulted in the release of new political energies within Lakewood’s Democratic and Republican Clubs.

Perhaps Mike Summers, a Republican, lost his seat on the school board as an unintended consequence of the release of political energy into the Lakewood Democratic Club.

So let’s not argue the horizon of politics will go away with the City Manager.

The most critical question right now in my mind at least is which form of governance is most open and best equipped (are these mutually exclusive?) to harness effective social relationships, citizen engagement and community assets in planning, building and execution of a city vision.

Then the next question is who has the energy to preserve or change the existing system. Is this debate most worthy of the expenditure of energy at this time in the city’s history?

Kenneth Warren

In working with Steve on the Charter Review, Dr. Keller, presented some very complelling reasons to consider City Manager form of government. We did 2 charters for the citizens to review and consider - one with the City Manager form of government and one without.

I personally really wanted Lakewood to be able to decide what they thought was best. I wanted to hear good debates from the League of Woman Voters, the Democratic Club, the Republican Club, the Chamber of Commerce and every other group in Lakewood.

I really thought that this debate would be open and healthy and after a year of debate on this, we would have a very well informed citizenry that could make the best decision for the years to come. But Lakewood didn't get that choice - because Council didn't put it on the ballot.

There was nothing negative about this regarding our current Mayor - the idea of having a city manager was looked at by us as similar to the School Board hiring a superintendent, to run the schools. Likewise a city manager would be hired by city council to run the city.

I did have the impression that there would be less political appointments by a city manager.

But I really wanted the citizens of Lakewood to have a chance to decide this issue.

Kenneth Warren wrote:The most critical question right now in my mind at least is which form of governance is most open and best equipped (are these mutually exclusive?) to harness effective social relationships, citizen engagement and community assets in planning, building and execution of a city vision.

Then the next question is who has the energy to preserve or change the existing system. Is this debate most worthy of the expenditure of energy at this time in the city’s history?

Kenneth Warren

My guess is that the city manager system wouldn't be a good fit for Lakewood.

For the system to work effectively, I think, there has to be some consensus about city govenment expectations. And from what I read here, there is virtually no consensus in Lakewood on anything.

I wouldn't be surprised if you took a series of polls, you would find the community split 50-50 on nearly every major philosophical question. Taxes vs. service. Business development vs. bedroom community. Police vs. sewers. Diversity vs. caucasian paradise. Paper vs. plastic.

A place to rent an apartment for a couple of years vs. a place to buy your first home, then move up vs. a place you want to live your entire life in.

Each group is sizeably represented, and while there may be some common ground between the groups, there are also big differences in terms of priorities.

A merry mix,maybe. But one that would probably have a professional manager tossing up his hands in exasperation.

The schools are a different story. The overwhelming majority of Lakewood homes don't have kids in the schools. And without that personal stake in it, it's natural not to think too much about the school system. I've been to a couple of school board meetings (kid awards) and once the awards are given, the place empties out. I could hold the rest of the meeting in my living room.

A city manager may be able to find efficiencies, yes. But she/he won't be able to get blood out of a stone. Eventually, the central question facing Lakewood...more revenue or less service?....will have to be answered no matter who is in the Big Chair or what his or her title is,

I believe Lakewood's issues right now are more philsophical than mechanical. I'm not sure a different form of government will provide the answers.

Tax dollars are tax dollars. How they are spent, how resources are allocated and what tools are used to determine those allocations are really important for "effective delivery of city services". Measurement is an important element of effective management. The City of Lakewood has little or no measurement going on.

http://icma.org/main/bc.asp?bcid=490&hs ... ssid2=2548

When a citizens committee takes the time and energy to carefully examine and recommend a course of action - they should at least receive an honest and open discussion of their recommendations. That discussion will energize the community and perhaps reveal alternative solutions. The ballot issue will settle the question.

Suzanne:

Your post raises an interesting question: Is there a link between the lack of measurement you note and the mode of social relationship constellating through the generalized form or particularized agents operating under Mayor and Council?

Kenneth Warren

Is this the CitiStat program? Seems like a promising effort. What's the status?

Professionalism in government can also come from the Mayor's appointments and City consulting contracts. Our Finance, Law, and Development directors have professional training.

My hunch is we're using indirect means to talk not about a problem of technocratic expertise, but the issue of political will--our willingness to tackle tough decisions (which another poster described as more revenue or less services).

And if that's the case, citizen engagement and media sunshine is the best medicine for increasing political will.

Ken, your question raises an interesting point. Does the social relationship between the Mayor, the council, the community and the employees impede our ability to measure, evaluate, problem solve and manage?

I think it does. I don't think it has to. With a strong council presence, empowered to perform appropriate administrative oversight in the form of a professional manager, the social relationship can provide the community with sound professional management while maintaining the community relationship of an elected and representative board.

Government isn't getting simpler. Finance, HR, Economic Development, etc. are all becoming more and more complex. Why do I want to restict the pool of talent to run my city and spend my tax dollars to a small political model when I have excellent examples of professional managers, obtained from a national talent pool, managed by elected boards, spending public dollars in a measured, responsive and evaluated way, in Lakewood?

The interest in a City Manager is about looking forward. The Charter Review committee's recommendation was about the future, not the past. As the schools have a fifty year plan and the library has a fifty year plan, the city must also be anticipating the needs of the next few decades. We can't continue to do that in a vacuum. When the citizens take their time and come forth with a thoughtful recommendation, the community should at least be able to weigh in.

Suzanne

Tom:

Thanks for the kind words about my plea for changing our form of government. I appreciate them greatly.

However, you seem to confuse election of the executive with democracy. The representatives of the people - not the voters BTW - do need to be elected. Without election they cannot be representative in a serious manner. However, the executive is not a representative of the people. The executive's job, as the title indicates, is to implement as effectively as possible the legal mandates of the people's representatives. Presumably, by the election of the representatives, their mandates follow the wishes of the voters as well as the public generally.

The people, as a concept, means past, present and future citizens. Thus, this cross generation collective is what our politics ought to serve. This means we continue our traditions, meet the current needs and protect the future for our posterity.

With the executive's job focused on implementation not representation, election is not the most effective method to fill the office. Not only are elected executives often inexperienced with regards to discharging such offices (though they may have lots of political experience), they tend to be as interested in political careers as with executive duties. This not only can lead to ineffectiveness but to problems of how well the council, the people's representatives, can work with the executive.

[Quote from original message] If you accept Keller's skepticism that democratic elections can produce good results (e.g. effective leadership in government), his conclusion is reasonable. Keller's recommendation falls into a tradition of aristocracy--or at least meritocracy. The idea is to be clear-eyed and realistic about the limitations of popular elections and semi-informed choices made by voters busy earning a living and raising their families.

In this vein, Churchill commented that democracy is the worst system, except for all the others. (Democracy *does* have so many shortcomings, it *is* the worst system... except for...) Going back further in history, the ancient Greek historian Thucydides wrote crictically of the rash decisions made by the Athenian populace that led to its downfall. Plato, likewise, opted instead, for a government by the "best" and most wise, describing leadership by an ideal philosopher-king. [End of quote]

As democracy does not mean election of all officials - at least for me - I have little skepticism of the people's representatives. In fact, I would permit them to select the executive, renewing my faith in elections by knowing the representatives are seeking effective, professional government.

[Quote from original message] The other view is what might be termed the "Lakewood Observer school"--to have faith in the democratic system, or at least a greater distrust of "all the others". While the shortcomings of democracy and imperfect decisions by voters must be acknowledged, we can work to improve democracy by improving the community and its citizens. Socrates accomplished this through dialogue; the Lakewood Observation Deck is doing the same; and the crowd-sourced* (see below) news content of the Lakewood Observer further engages Lakewood citizens in creating, not just consuming, our community. This leads to better, more-informed decisions by Lakewood voters and better results from our democratic elections.

As an "Observerite", I’m not yet ready to give up on democracy and support a City Manager system. Instead, I’ll invest my energies into improving our community dialogue, into inspiring faith in our own ability to make our own decisions, into inspiring belief in Lakewood’s ability to overcome Lakewood’s challenges. Lakewood’s well of citizen talent and citizen ingenuity is deep and rich. [End of quote]

Democracy for me does not mean I should tolerate ineffective or unprofessional government. Thus, I want a group of citizens who represent the community to appoint a Director of Lakewood Library and a School Superintendent. I have sufficient faith in the capabilities of my fellow Lakewoodians that they will make good choices and hold the appointed executives accountable for working for the community. And I certainly don't feel that I have been denied democracy in the bargain.

Further, I believe the more intense scutiny of the elected or appointed representatives is more likely to hold the executive accountable than elections every four years. I want accountability of the executive, since they can do so much mischief as our founding fathers realized, to be an ongoing process. Elections can't accomplish that; appointments can.

[Quote from the original] Nonetheless I applaud Dr. Keller for opening this discussion and respect both the points he makes and the conclusions he draws about them.[End of quote]

As well you should!

----------------------
Links:

Observer Story, "Time for a Change": Can't find the link. Jim or DL, can you help out?

Current City Charter: http://www.lkwdpl.org/city/charter/

Report recommending changes to current city charter: [url]
http://www.lkwdpl.org/city/CharterSummaryandChanges.pdf[/url]

Section by section comparison of Current Charter with Revised
Charter with Council-Manager Charter: [url]
http://www.lkwdpl.org/city/CharterComparison.pdf[/url][/i]

Crowd-Sourcing: see http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.06/crowds.html[/quote]

Dan, Lynn, Steve, Suzanne, Lynn, Tom and All:

Yes, Dan, I am about. I have been out town much of September but am now back for awhile. I just wrote an answer to Tom's earlier critique of my Observer article. I want to jump in here also given the comments that have been occurring.

I intend to write a series of articles for the Observer about local, particularly municipal, governance. Governance is the process, government is the mechanism.

Don't you just love a good dialog! I will continue below after quoting your message.

Dan Slife wrote:Steve,

Thanks for the clarification.

Is it not the manager's responsibility to advise what policies and practices should be implemented to better manage the city, as that manager sees fit?

If the city manager comes to the table lacking an ideologically driven practice/methodology... then the brains lie not in the manager, but in council? How then does a manager/council system generate 'innovation' while simultaneously 'depoliticizing' the executive office if the council has not been hired as well?

After all, the city manager occupies a highly refined niche of graduate academic training.

What then is the role of council in the manager system? Does this role also change?

Dr. Keller,

Are you out there?

The role of the manager will be legally spelled out in the Charter. As Lynn noted, the Charter Review Commission did write a Council-Manager Charter to help organize a better discussion about the form of government. The Charter is available, IIRC, on the Library website.

Politically, the manager brings several contributions to the table. And if he or she does not, I would hope he or she is not appointed or soon fired. These contributions are critical for effective government and they include as well as go beyond efficiency in management. In fact, the best argument for the Council-Manager system in my mind is that it can provide for better politics. Non-partisan elections are a start but as long as parties can determine candidates, especially for an elected executive, partisan politics will continue to play a major role. Parties are much more appropriate for organizing the legislative branch than for selecting municipal executives.

The first contribution a city manager can bring to the table is a commitment to professional effective government. A city manager dedicates his or her career to working with citizens, city councils, other administrators, etc., to make cities work for all. They have no higher political ambition than to be a city manager. Their careers take them from city to city with the next council using the feedback from the previous council in the decision to hire. This makes city managers accountable for professional behavior in a most effective manner, far beyond what elections can do.

A second contribution a city manager can bring to city such as Lakewood is experience with similar cities. For example, when C. A. Harrell was hired as city manager of Cincinnati he had managed nine other cities. What a benefit to the council, the citizens and the city to have an executive who had such a background. Similarly, Lakewood will have managers apply who have experience in at least one other and more likely several other communities. Thus, the hiring process can be very educational for the council and the city. And since the manager is responsible to the council, he or she can help educate the council. Failure to cooperate with the council has immediate consequences, promoting cooperation and the use of a manager's education and experience.

Lakewood, thanks to its size, will also attract those managers who seek successful careers. Thus, we will have the best of the experienced managers who are career and professionally oriented as our executives.

A third contribution is that an executive selected through a national search helps to elevate local politics. The manager will be in but not of the local politics. This helps to limit old boy and other dysfunctional networks. As the politics improve, more citizens may be willing to participate more fully in the politics. All too often, those who could contribute so much to our politics and community governance are turned off by the politics. By improving the politics we upgrade our ability to govern professionally our community and to meet the severe challenges we now face.

Finally, city managers are not only educated initially but continually seek education. They meet periodically, with the northeast Ohio city managers, for example, meeting at our College where they interact with faculty and students. The International City/County Management Association (ICMA) also provides a series of conferences, programs and even certificates that give a manager the most current management information. This helps managers to be innovative, assisting councils in using the best methods to improve the community. And this professionalism creates a culture in which councils, administrators and even citizens continue to seek education, information and innovation.

A final comment that is important. No system is a panacea. Systems function only as well as those who participate. However, systems do make a difference. The difference is critical to success in the long run. If we adopt and operate a professional Council-Manager system we create better odds for successfully confronting our problems. No guarantees. But I prefer to have the best odds in light of the critical problems and issues facing our community. After all, I have a major investment in my house and my future here in Lakewood.

Good to hear from you and I will be more active on the list. The dialog is too good to miss.

Donald:

The Council-Manager Charter that the 2004 Charter Review Commission developed required any city manager appointed in Lakewood to become a resident with three months or lose the position. The three months allows for relocation of family.

I strongly believe that public servants should live in the community they serve. In this respect, I hope the Ohio Supreme Court upholds the City of Cleveland Charter that requires all employees to live in the city.

Donald Farris wrote:Hi,
One question: Is the City Manager required to be a citizen of Lakewood?

If you say no, then I must say no to the idea of City Manager. I want someone running our City that sleeps here at night and faces life as us Lakewood citizens do.

If you say yes, then I say run your candidate for City Manager for the Office of Mayor. No change needed.

PS. Lakewood had a prior Mayor that did some bad things. Lakewood citizens voted her out of office. I don't see how Lakewood citizens could vote out a bad City Manager as easily.

It is much easier to dismiss a city manager than a mayor. A city manager serves at the pleasure of the city council and can be fired at any meeting by a majority vote. There is no separation of powers in the Council-Manager plan.

In contrast, a "bad" mayor can remain both popular and politically powerful which means he or she can remain in office for a long time. Some charters provide for a recall but that is a lengthy and often contentious process. It is not feasible to have an impeachment process as that would allow 5 council members to remove a mayor.

Dr. Larry Keller wrote: It is much easier to dismiss a city manager than a mayor. A city manager serves at the pleasure of the city council and can be fired at any meeting by a majority vote. There is no separation of powers in the Council-Manager plan.

This, in a nutshell, aptly describes two of my problems with the City Manager system.

dl,

Just out of curiosity, what do you feel is the advantage of seperation of powers in our current form of CITY government?

Steve

There is a formal provision for strong policy leadership, since the mayor has executive powers while council has legislative powers.

But that was only part of the meat of the discussion.

Can you explain to me the advantages of giving my vote away to council?