The Observation Deck

Thealexa Becker wrote:So what you are saying is that a City Manager is going to essentially be like a Prime Minister. I don't know if I like the idea of electing reps to one position and having them be elected by other officials to another.

Mr. Call, I do agree that a man with a plan does seem like the best alternative.

A city manage can supervise the day to day operations of the City. I don't think a city manager can provide a vision and an agenda. A political leader can.

Perhaps the City needs both. (A really unpopular idea.)

Failing companies (in the olden days anyways) adapt or die, failing cities live on forever, doing the same thing over and over again hoping for a few more dollars certain that if they try it one more time....

Thealexa,

I am not sure where you would like me to begin. So I will throw out some information and you can ask questions from there.

The City Manager concept generally operates in the following manner.

1) The City Council would still consist of seven members, but instead of having a President, the title would change to Mayor and that person would fulfill the duties of a council president and the ceremonial duties of a mayor.

2) The City Council would hire a public policy professional known as a city manager to run the city on a day-to-day basis. This manager answers to the council and can be hired and fired as they arrange. This may be an "at-will" arrangement or by contract, similar to the way our library and school system work.

Alright, if you got 'em, ask 'em.

Sounds as though the city manager is the lead administrator, Council President would likely be the senior council member and the voters would be left to chosing their council members to carry out their desires for the direction of the city. Sounds as though it would be a good fit if little to no change was needed. This is assuming that council selects it's president and not the voters. Am I off on this?
What are the ins and outs of the checks and balances in this format?

For information about City Managers, and the Coucil/Manager form of government, I would recommend visiting the ICMA website.

http://icma.org


It is a very deep site that contains lots of information and data. I have selected a few interesting links that can help you get started.


Here is one to a brochure called “Professional Local Government Management: The Benefits to Your Municipalityâ€

We've had a city manager in Mentor all the while when I was growing up, and it's worked well, very well. And few of the cities around northeast Ohio have had the explosive growth faced by Mentor ... when I was born, the population there was under 25,000 and today's more than double that ... and most of it occurred in the 1970s and 1980s. While growth has slowed today (a developer is currently filling in the last big open piece of land with a housing development), the city is still being run quite efficiently. Contrast this with Euclid, where the mayor's office has been hugely political over the last 10 or 15 years, with amazing amounts of infighting and bad feelings, and the current mayor is rather interesting because of the disdain he publicly shows towards most of the electorate.

I think the city manager form works quite well, but I'd suggest that any group that wants to look into it as an option for Lakewood should really examine the communities in this region that use the city manager city, talk to people there, look at the system for benefits as well as drawbacks, and really see if this is something that will work for Lakewood. Some people feel the city manager isn't as personally responsive as a popularly-elected mayor, but others don't have a problem with that, especially if the city council members are really responsive to their constituents.

Let's do our homework, before jumping to conclusions. This might be something that LakewoodAlive, or the library, or some other civic group could promote and lead, along with a task force made up of interested citizens.

As indicated here, the city manager form of governance can work very well when it works.

The potential drawbacks to this system would be threefold, as I understand the situation as it might apply to Lakewood.

1) the cost...I would surmise that in order to get a city manager, their salary ALONE would exceed that of what we currently pay our mayor AND our council combined! Are we so flush with funds as to be able to move in that direction? It has been suggested that a city manager could effect other savings for us, but where, exactly? I believe that we are about as bare-bones as possible right now, without getting into labor relations catfights.

2) We would need to spell out hiring and termination procedures that would work for the city, BUT the more power that we permit Council to have to remove a city manager, the harder it can be to get a manager willing to work week-to-week. No one's going to want to move to a new city if they can be fired the following week! Professionals want guarantees.

3) The public is removed from direct control of their administrator, and this is what bothers me the most. We need to be careful when we surrenter our franchise to vote directly for this person, and that's what this is. Unlike the current system, you and I would have NO direct control over the hiring or firing of a person who will be charged with the day-to-day nuts-and-bolts running of a city....Do we really want this?

As I've indicated, I'm not necessarily opposed to learning more about this...

But neither do I approve of it.

Gary,

Gary Rice wrote: The potential drawbacks to this system would be threefold, as I understand the situation as it might apply to Lakewood.

Drawbacks may be MORE than threefold. Advantages may outnumber them, or maybe not. Believe me, a form of government change is not a panacea, nor is it permanent if found unacceptable.

Gary Rice wrote:1) the cost...I would surmise that in order to get a city manager, their salary ALONE would exceed that of what we currently pay our mayor AND our council combined! Are we so flush with funds as to be able to move in that direction? It has been suggested that a city manager could effect other savings for us, but where, exactly? I believe that we are about as bare-bones as possible right now, without getting into labor relations catfights.

We’ve been pretty lucky with the mayors we’ve had in Lakewood. Good people have always stepped up. Your comment is going to make me mix issues. The salary for mayor is low enough that it may inhibit participation by some very talented people. I have advocated a raise for that position for many years to encourage a broad talent pool to run for office.

If a mayor hires just one person to a position of questionable or marginal benefit, the difference between our Mayor’s salary and a city manager is probably wiped out. (I once saw a list of how many Lakewood employees are paid more than the Mayor. I was stunned. Maybe somebody can post some info on that.)

Gary Rice wrote:2) We would need to spell out hiring and termination procedures that would work for the city, BUT the more power that we permit Council to have to remove a city manager, the harder it can be to get a manager willing to work week-to-week. No one's going to want to move to a new city if they can be fired the following week! Professionals want guarantees.

This has been done before. There is no need to reinvent a process. Over 100,000,000 Americans live in city manager environments. We are just unfamiliar with it here in most of Cuyahoga County, and specifically, Lakewood. With Lakewood's talent pool, I'm sure it can be figured out.

Gary Rice wrote:3) The public is removed from direct control of their administrator, and this is what bothers me the most. We need to be careful when we surrenter our franchise to vote directly for this person, and that's what this is. Unlike the current system, you and I would have NO direct control over the hiring or firing of a person who will be charged with the day-to-day nuts-and-bolts running of a city....Do we really want this?

In the absence of a Lakewood Mayor, there is an order of succession, just like in the federal government. I am posting a section of our charter here. Consider how many of those on the succession list you have voted for directly. Also consider that the first four on the list probably can’t afford the pay cut to be mayor, and that any of those choices must also be a resident of Lakewood to be eligible. What you are left with is “an elector of the City chosen by Council.â€

Steve--- Since you were chairperson of the most recent Charter Review Commission, which examined the city manager issue, could you recap the how, why, and who of how that topic was introduced to the Commission?
Stan

Stan Austin wrote:Steve--- Since you were chairperson of the most recent Charter Review Commission, which examined the city manager issue, could you recap the how, why, and who of how that topic was introduced to the Commission?
Stan

Stan,

I was not the chairperson. Ed Patton was. I don't recall who introduced the city manager issue. It may have been Larry Keller. He is fairly expert on that topic.

As you know, there are many topics covered by a charter review. Some get more attention than others. You try to develop practical solutions to the simpler issues that have a more immediate impact on governance, and then look at the more long range theoretical problems/solutions. Priorities are often determined by what is brought to the commission by the Administration, Council, and the general public. Pressing issues get first attention.

If I had my way, I would extend the Charter Commission past the 6 month term. There are some obscure items in the charter that should be looked at, but there is never enough time. Of course, that term is defined by the charter, and would take a charter amendment to change it. Lakewood's charter is much more cumbersome than most communities.

Anyway, not sure what you really want to know about that. You attended your share of those meetings during the most recent charter review. Maybe you could remind me.


Steve

.

Stan, If memory serves me it was Dr. Larry Keller that brought the city manager topic to the table. We had many great discussions on this topic. In the end I personally felt it would be a nice fit for our city. I also agree with Steve, 6 months is not long enough for the charter review.

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/02 ... .html#more

Here's a related article from today's PD.

David Anderson wrote:http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/02/university_heights_mayor_calls.html#more

Here's a related article from today's PD.

WOW!

Now there is a city in turmoil.

Seems like she is making a pretty good case for city manager. 32 years in office, reverse 911 calls, limiting residents rights to speak.

WOW!


.