The Observation Deck

stephen davis wrote:Nickie's term ends on January, 1st.

Charlie Page in response wrote:Her term doesn’t end as much as her first term as State Rep starts in January.

Charlie,

You are absolutely correct. Her Council term does not end for years. I just assumed she would leave her Council position when she started her new State position, and I also assumed that her new State term would start at the beginning of January. I actually have no knowledge of when that new term starts, or if and when she is obliged to resign her Council seat.

Good catch.

stephen davis wrote:Times like this make me ponder, again, the advantages of a Council/Manager form of government. It could provide better continuity of government in these and many other situations.

Charlie Page in response wrote:I thought about that as well. But then you trade one set of problems for another.

I'm curious about what problems you think might be traded in a change from a Mayor/Council to a Council/Manager form of government.

Steve

.

All of this raises many interesting questions.

As with Nickie staying on as a council member. Could the charter be changed to allow Ed
to stay on as mayor? Just curious. Is the mayor's job a full time position? What are the
benefits to the city?

Charlie, Steve and I and many others have kicked this City Manager around for years, and
there are serious pluses and minuses for both. I have seen some of the finest "managers" in
the world lose touch and mismanage. The example I use is BP, that managed to downsize
their company while owning most of the Pipeline, and being in the oil business. In the end
Managers are just "pros" that have no time for the popularity contest of being elected. But
they are humans, and there in lies both the problems and the benefits, just like the
difference between City Manager and Mayor.

Still, I am sure the charter could be changed to allow for a "trial" or possibly an escape clause
based on lack of performance. We have done the Mayor thing for as long as I have been
here and long before. If it could be constructed correctly, why not try it?

This does point out some missing pieces in our charter. It would seem that we have to
act pretty quickly to replace any and all. Why not allow the Law Director, Finance Director,
Public Works Director or City Council President could serve both in their position and
as "Acting Mayor" for a period of say 6 months or? Why isn't something that allows time
for an orderly exchange of positions.

Charley let me assure you I had the Page name on my very short list.


.

stephen davis wrote:I just assumed she would leave her Council position when she started her new State position, and I also assumed that her new State term would start at the beginning of January. I actually have no knowledge of when that new term starts, or if and when she is obliged to resign her Council seat.

Offhand, I don’t know the specific date either. But you bring up a good point, is she obligated by either the state or city to resign? If not, would she want to do both jobs?

stephen davis wrote:Times like this make me ponder, again, the advantages of a Council/Manager form of government. It could provide better continuity of government in these and many other situations.

Charlie Page in response wrote:I thought about that as well. But then you trade one set of problems for another.

stephen davis wrote:I'm curious about what problems you think might be traded in a change from a Mayor/Council to a Council/Manager form of government.

Maybe “problems” is not the right word choice here. As Jim stated, we’ve had a mayoral format for a long time, maybe we should try something new?

I think this might be a grass is greener issue. With the mayoral format we have a set of knowns. With the city manager format there are a lot of unknowns. We can attempt to lessen the unknowns through research but until we are in that format, we’ll not know everything. No amount of research can replace actual experience. One thing is for sure, we’d have to pay a city manager a heck of a lot more than what the mayor currently gets paid (which I think the Mayor is underpaid as it is).

Charlie Page wrote:

stephen davis wrote:I just assumed she would leave her Council position when she started her new State position, and I also assumed that her new State term would start at the beginning of January. I actually have no knowledge of when that new term starts, or if and when she is obliged to resign her Council seat.

Offhand, I don’t know the specific date either. But you bring up a good point, is she obligated by either the state or city to resign? If not, would she want to do both jobs?

January 1.

Charlie Page wrote:I think this might be a grass is greener issue. With the mayoral format we have a set of knowns. With the city manager format there are a lot of unknowns. We can attempt to lessen the unknowns through research but until we are in that format, we’ll not know everything. No amount of research can replace actual experience. One thing is for sure, we’d have to pay a city manager a heck of a lot more than what the mayor currently gets paid (which I think the Mayor is underpaid as it is).

Bingo, total grass is greener. But we also just started a grass is greener for of regional government.
Maybe what a city needs is a tough negotiator, back up by a knowledgeable council, and
team of others. Maybe we need to hire the person that does the teacher's contracts?
According to Bill they are near superhuman.

NOW let me be the first to frame all of these conversations right now.

I am sure we all believe that we have been blessed with great leadership in the past, and
the only thing better than all of the officials from the past is the current great crop of
representatives for the people, businesses, and students in Lakewood.

BUT

What if we are not so blessed in the future?

Under that premise I am sure this conversation falls.

I have often wondered if the mayor, council and school board paid more than expenses
would it get a whole different crop of runners? What if the mayor was paid $150,000?
What if council got $50,000, what if the school board got $50,000? Would it have any
influence on getting people involved and at what level?

Under all of the aspects of the above statement, the conversation then usually turns to
oh the horror, what if council was not up to picking the manager? Again, we are
currently blessed so that it is harder to think along these wild abstract lines, but what if?

MAYBE - the entire deal has to be rethought. Maybe we should convene a new charter
group and give them a blank pad of paper. Here is the region, here is the economy, here
are the social issues, here are the facts for the foresable future. MAKE IT WORK FOR
ENOUGH PEOPLE TO VOTE IT THROUGH. There was such a group just a year ago that was
meeting to rewrite the entire charter and have the city vote on it. Why Not?

Steve you have been on two or three charter reviews, does it need a major overhaul?

.

When you put a "city manager" in place, you are potentially putting a barrier between the electorate and the day-to-day operations of a city. I would rather have someone running the city whom I can call up on the phone and give my input directly to that person.

Citizens deserve direct accountability.

Gee, maybe we, who are on this 'Deck, should take the initiative here...

Just daydreaming here...of course...

Mayor- Gary Rice, (of course) or maybe Obie? (Jim O'Bryan)

City Manager- Steve Davis? (Advisory)

Finance Director- Bill Call?

Director of Human Services- Sharon Kinsella?

Chief of Police- Stan Austin?

Legal Department- Will Brown?

Parks and Recreation- Stephen Eisel?

Animal Welfare- Missy Limkemann?

Department of Business Relations- Charlie Page?

The rest of this daydream, I will leave to your own musings...

Oh yes..perhaps a proposed new salary for City administrators?

$1 per year.

Back to the banjo...(before I get run out of town...)

Gary Rice wrote:Oh yes..perhaps a proposed new salary for City administrators? $1 per year.

The phrase "you get what you pay for" immediately comes to mind

stephen davis wrote:Times like this make me ponder, again, the advantages of a Council/Manager form of government. It could provide better continuity of government in these and many other situations.

Charlie Page in response wrote:I thought about that as well. But then you trade one set of problems for another.

stephen davis wrote:I'm curious about what problems you think might be traded in a change from a Mayor/Council to a Council/Manager form of government.

Charlie Page in response wrote:Maybe “problems” is not the right word choice here. As Jim stated, we’ve had a mayoral format for a long time, maybe we should try something new?

I think this might be a grass is greener issue. With the mayoral format we have a set of knowns. With the city manager format there are a lot of unknowns. We can attempt to lessen the unknowns through research but until we are in that format, we’ll not know everything. No amount of research can replace actual experience. One thing is for sure, we’d have to pay a city manager a heck of a lot more than what the mayor currently gets paid (which I think the Mayor is underpaid as it is).

Charlie,

The Council/Manager form of government is not unknown. Although not nearly as common in Cuyahoga County, it is very common in other parts of the state/country. I think that all but one or two cities in Franklin County, including Cincinnati, have city managers. Dayton has a city manager, as do many of the suburbs of Columbus. Regionally, we have Cleveland Heights, Kent, Hudson, Bedford, Oberlin, and Mentor, among others.

We are also exposed to a similar model in public schools. The School Board hires the superintendent as a professional manager. (One difference is that city managers generally do not have multi-year contracts. City managers work at the pleasure of the elected council, and can be terminated at any time.)

Take a look at this link. Lots of information here.:

http://icma.org/en/icma/home

A city manager's salary would be higher than what we currently pay our mayor (I agree with you. The Mayor's salary is way too low. So is Council's.), but a visionary council combined with professional management should net some measurable efficiencies. A city manager could be hired for specific experiences and skill sets. Council could concentrate on long-range planning, policy, and interaction with the electorate.

Steve

.

I hope I can help by shedding light on some of these discussion items, not so much as they relate to the mayor-manager debate and other charter changes (which Council has recently discussed in our Committee of the Whole), but instead as they relate to our current circumstances and our plan moving forward.

First, it should be noted that the Lakewood charter, the new county charter and the Ohio constitution all bar elected officials in each jurisdiction from holding other elective office. Thus, neither Councilwoman Antonio nor Mayor Fitzgerald, if he's elected to the county executive post, may continue to serve in Lakewood while serving in their new roles. Because the state representative and county executive terms both begin January 1, 2011, I assume their last day in Lakewood government would be December 31, 2010.

Councilwoman Antonio is unopposed and will doubtless be a state assemblywoman January 1 (congratulations to her). I believe Mayor FitzGerald has a very good chance of winning the party primary election on September 7 and moving on to the November general election.

Therefore, after the primary has passed, I will announce (through the Council office) that Council will receive applications for any imminent vacancies in the office of councilmember or mayor from any interested, registered Lakewood voter. Applicants for the position of mayor will be informed that our review is subject to the following unknowns: (1) whether the mayor's office will actually become vacant as a result of the November general election; and (2) whether those in the line of succession under the city charter -- law director, finance director, public works director and council president -- indicate their unwillingness to accept the office should it become vacant.

Council will have ample opportunity to review any applications submitted in advance of the November general election. Following the general election, we will conduct any interviews of qualified candidates as we may deem appropriate at that time and under the circumstances. (For reference, we went through a very similar process in 2007 for a vacant council seat, to which Councilman Powers was ultimately appointed.)

It is also worth noting that under the provisions of the charter, Mayor FitzGerald's and Councilwoman Antonio's replacements would only occupy such office until the results of the November 2011 municipal election are certified. Any appointee wishing to retain his or her office past that date would have to stand for election in 2011.

I hope that provides some practical information within the scope of this discussion topic.

Kevin Butler

Kevin,

Perfectly clear and appropriate response.

Thanks.

Steve

.

Kevin Butler wrote:I hope I can help by shedding light on some of these discussion items, not so much as they relate to the mayor-manager debate and other charter changes (which Council has recently discussed in our Committee of the Whole), but instead as they relate to our current circumstances and our plan moving forward...

I hope that provides some practical information within the scope of this discussion topic.

Kevin Butler

Kevin

As always thank you for stepping in and up.

However I believe you might have glossed over some of the real facts and fears.

I have found this little movie that illustrates what could happen.

Kevin Butler wrote:It is also worth noting that under the provisions of the charter, Mayor FitzGerald's and Councilwoman Antonio's replacements would only occupy such office until the results of the November 2011 municipal election are certified. Any appointee wishing to retain his or her office past that date would have to stand for election in 2011.

I hope that provides some practical information within the scope of this discussion topic.

Kevin Butler

Another interesting thing to bring into the conversation is the performance of those that
have been appointed in the past. If my memory serves me correctly a majority have done
a good job after being appointed.

FWIW


.