The Observation Deck

Dr. Keller:

I understand the positive aspects that may result from a successful deployment of a council/manager system. I understand the anecdotal evidence. But, I'm far more concerned in the specifics as they relate to the very real City of Lakewood, in its current situation.

I have very real concerns over how we could ever afford a manager, given the need to be competitive to attract quality applicants from a national search. Yes, I've heard that there would be savings from elimination of supervisory functions which could be accomplished by the manager. I'd like something more concrete to demonstrate how we're actually going to pay for this change. What gets axed in the budget? Who's position is eliminated?

It would also seem, given the political squabbles we have experienced, that in the present climate, it may well be difficult for council to agree on any candidate. As factions come and go, so too, does the manager. It would seem to encourage political divisiveness. The ultimate winners of a majority on council have absolute power, name whomever they wish to manage until (for whatever reason) the pendulum swings, and now a new majority is in place whose first item of business is to replace the appointee of the former majority. Or, perhaps, council elections serve only as a surrogate, when in actuality the election is a plebiscite over the policies of the manger. Vote out council and take the manger with you.... While I could be very wrong in my assessment, I'm not relying on studies or papers, but on my life long observations of how politics in Lakewood actually works. What is it about Lakewood that will make this work?

This isn't a vacuum. What are the specifics about this city that show that a change can move us forward?

I'm still on the fence on this, but I really need something a great deal stronger than a hope that more qualified people will get involved in government, that a professional manager is somehow better than a professional politician, to abdicate my ability to "choose" a mayor to an ineffective council to choose a dynamic manager.

Help me out here.

Jeff

Jeff,

You've been on the the Library Board for some time. The Lakewood Library is a taxing governmental entity. You were not directly elected by the general population. Ken Warren is the professional manager/director that was hired in from out of town. He remains at the pleasure of your board.

I know that you have always been active in the schools. The elected School Board hired David Estrop from out of town to be their professional manager/superintendent.

You seem to have doubts that "a professional manager is somehow better than a professional politician." Why don't you hire a professional politician to run the library? Why doesn't the School Board hire a professional politician to run the schools? During this political season, and for the last six years, we have really gotten a nice look at how professional politicians behave and manage. Do I really need to mention Iraq, New Orleans, No Child Left Behind, or the loss of habeas corpus?

I'm not sure your concern about turnover is warranted either. I've lived in Lakewood for over twenty years. I've only know three school superintendents, and as far as I know, Ken Warren is the only director our library has ever had. I'd have to go to the library to research whether he had a predecessor.

dl seems to have a concern about her voting rights. Don't we all vote for members of City Council?

(By the way, dl, if you are reading this, you didn't even bother to answer my question. Many times I read your and Stan's posts and think you should both have identical signature files here on the Observation Deck. Your signature files should read "I'm Tom George, and I approve of this message." This discussion is not about the Mayor. I voted for Tom George. This discussion is about Lakewood's future and an investigation of forms of government.)

Steve

Gee, Steve, I didn't realize that I'm just a sock puppet.

I thought the city manager discussion wasn't about Tom George, but if I'm not crazy about the idea, it is about Tom George.

dl meckes wrote:I didn't realize that I'm just a sock puppet.

If the sock fits...

Steve

The short answer to your inquiry is simple enough. Neither the Library, nor the Schools were configured for the election by the general population of their respective superintendent/directors. And, along the same lines, both the school and library boards seem to function more along the lines of a team approach to problem solving, than does council.

But, you seem to have missed my point. I whole heartedly agree that the city, as a multi-million dollar business, complete with labor contracts, and service expectations, could benefit if the executive has the abilities of a professional manager. My concerns, as previously expressed, are not lessened merely by your dismissal of them.

If we were to institute this managerial style of governance, does that in turn assure that the body responsible for the manager's appointment will somehow begin to function with the same co-operative, team approach as is taken by the Library and School Boards? That would be wonderful, but all I ask for is some basis on which to reach that conclusion, beyond speculation. All I have to base my concerns upon is my observations of past activities and those do not, unfortunately, tend to indicate that changing the executive from one who is elected, to one that is appointed, will cause that metamorphosis.

And how is this manager's salary to be paid? Tell us who or what gets cut, what savings are generated so we understand that there is the financial wherewithal to hire a qualified candidate. To date, all I have heard are vague generalizations which are substantially similar to the ad hoc budgeting now practiced that has led to the current financial mess.

As to the parallels drawn to the disgrace we call our national leadership, I share your frustration. But, really, I doubt that anything we do here towards a change in our Charter will have any impact on the issues you raise. We can agree that there is a huge level of self-interest that fills many politicians, and the logic seems to be, that if we can remove even one politician from the formulation of city governance, that it's bound to be an improvement. Perhaps so. But perhaps all you accomplish is concentrating greater power in a legislative body of politicians, giving them one further area for disagreement. I don't know.

So, my unanswered question remains. Lakewood is not an Ivory Tower case study. It ain't Sim-City. It's very real, has very real issues, tradition and attitude. What can you point to in our present day make up to show, beyond speculation, that this change will result in a change in the manner in which the legislature functions (that being the prerequisite to making the manager viable)? Who are those, waiting in the wings, that will become energized and involved? Where does the money come from?

I simply can't take it on faith. Maybe change is good, but not merely out of a sense of frustration and change for change's sake. I just can't assume the rosy outlook that the change could engender when there is a darker possibility that is equally, if not more, probable based on the current organizational history.

Jeff

Jeff, your questions will remain unanswered. There are no guarantees. We can't beta test government models or candidates, we can only try to develop the best model with the best candidates using the tools and people at our disposal. We have tried the mayor/council model for decades. The paradigm has changed. Government has changed, competency has changed and the talent pool has changed. Should we continue to do business as usual or do we look carefully at successful models within the community and take advantage of what we've learned? You said that the school board and library board are "teams". Why? What allows that to happen? The fact that they are focused on a common goal instead of focused on themselves. The executive they hired is there to facilitate that common goal, not to build a separate "team" to divide and conquer the board. There is only one team. As for the members of the team, well we'll just have to work hard to put the right people in office. I can't say we don't have the right people now, because the current model doesn't lend itself to being a team.

The current model promotes an adversarial relationship and shifts the community's focus from common community goals to individual personalities. That encourages favoritism, cronyism, and a myopic view of the community.

Suzanne

I'm not asking for any guarentees, I know that would be impossible/untruthful. BUT, if there are no answers to the questions being asked, then SOMEBODY needs to get the ducks in a row so that the electorate is given a more compelling case than "What we have is broken, so let's try what was sucessful for Cleveland Hts."

I'm not saying that the change is the wrong solution. Merely that if it is implemented, who stands ready to step forward as part of the team to support it? Who, on council, is in favor? Who, outside of council, is prepared to step forward as part of a cooperative team and become a part of council. Tell me that there is a group on council ready to cooperate and implement, a group ready to run for council with that as there platform, and then my major concern is answered. Without, I think that the carriage is before the horse.

Jeff

Jeff,

Now we're getting somewhere. Let's start with the Charter Review Committee. Those citizens, appointed by both the mayor and council, did a lot of work to develop their recommendations to council. The only reason council got two recommendations instead of one was because of the intrenched politics at city hall. The bottom line is that that group came to a concensus that the community needed to have a city manager as an option. As for council, they should speak for themselves, but I wouldn't expect them to jump into a conversation that could easily be derailed by special interests claiming that council is making a power play. The community needs to have this discussion openly and without benefit of party politics. It won't be easy and it may be that they decide that city manager is a bad option, but they should be permitted to make that decision, at the recommendation of citizens who took personal time, uncompensated time, to focus on what is best for this community. Thanks for helping us move this conversation forward.

Suzanne

It seems reasonable to expect an interest in preserving consensual relations around the separated powers of Mayor and Council would preclude a move toward the City Manager charter change.

Consensual relations between Mayor and Council are important for effective governance and delivery of services. It does not make sense for council members to sacrifice consensual relations with the Mayor, relations one hopes that inform the politics and work of today’s challenges, despite the good work of citizens on a charter review committee. Why should they take a flyer on the future unless there was a critical factor or wager on a grand and certain outcome to compel it.

It is when consensual relations between the Mayor and Council turn combative that concerns for the proper functioning of government arise.

Then the motivation and root for the combative relations must be discerned. Is the problem a human and political problem? Is the problem economic, due to limited resources? Or is problem a matter of structure?

What degrees and what causes of combative relations between a Mayor and Council would suggest that a change in the governance structure is in order?

Do the combatants better serve the work of the city by instigating for a new structure or a new team?

Proponents for the change in governance structure generally say the issue is not about the current Mayor; it’s about the future. But we can’t predict the future.

Some proponents look to the day when a unified council will hire an experienced and credentialed professional city manager and collapse the separation of powers that limits the thrust of the present order.

Yet the gorilla in the room of the future is the election that turns out badly, the unified team that never shows, the council that sends in the clowns for city manager and constructs a circus for each ward.

It seems to me the separation of powers within the current Mayor/Council structure provides a floor and a ceiling, that is to say, a boundary condition denying government the unified transformational power (the power to make other) proponents of the City Manager/Council structure suggest will be needed at some time in the future.

I want to suggest that this unified transformational power as opposed to the separated powers is what DL is saying that she fears. Conversely, I want to suggest this unified transformational power is what the proponents of the change to a City Manager are offering.

Different strokes for different folks, wagering with attitudes about time past, present and future, with perspectives on economy, government, and personalities.

It’s a fine conversation we have here, as we attempt to discover the horse power needed for the Wood’s fiery chariot to ride high, swing low or hang with the do-nothing muse of Jimmyville where Lakewood remains good enough for now.

Kenneth Warren

Kenneth Warren wrote:...

Different strokes for different folks, wagering with attitudes about time past, present and future, with perspectives on economy, government, and personalities.

It?s a fine conversation we have here, as we attempt to discover the horse power needed for the Wood?s fiery chariot to ride high, swing low or hang with the do-nothing muse of Jimmyville where Lakewood remains good enough for now.

Kenneth Warren

Ken

While you and I have jokingly latched on to Joan's mantra of "good enough for now," we both know that what you refer to as Jimmyville, offers so much more towards an even safer, more livable, vibrant community, at little or no cost to the city and it's residents.

"Good enough for now" is the battle cry of those without hopes and dreams. It came out of a night of mirth and laughter. We both know that Lakewood is in better shape than most in the region, which is why we are able to laugh at the comment.

Jimmyville as one threatened person once referred to it as, is nothing more than safe, clean, enjoyable. Which we both know strikes fear into many, as they would have nothing to complain about in their day to day lives.

FWIW


.

The New York Times has run an article about the scarcity in city managers.

File under “The Messiah Never Comes; the Politics Never Stop.â€Â￾

In the article, Ralph Blumenthal provides these salients that should give pause:

“…..David Johnson said he much preferred restoring muscle cars to solving his neighbors’ utility and garbage woes as Tecumseh’s city manager….â€Â￾

"Frank Benest, the manager of Palo Alto, Calif., says there are far more managers planning to retire than young people to replace them."

“It’s too political,â€Â￾ said Mr. Johnson, 36, a former state inspector who quit City Hall in December after voters elected a new mayor and council members he regarded as hostile.

Fractious politics and disdain for government, the limits of small-town life and pay, and the aging of baby boomers traditionally drawn to civic careers are making the job harder to fill, even as communities increasingly turn to such professional administrators to oversee budgets, services and personnel.

The shrinking pool of recruits is a forerunner of what some experts call a broader government talent shortage to come. With the bulging postwar generation nearing its retirement years, statisticians forecast a growing gap of unfilled executive and managerial jobs…â€Â￾

Despite the idealization of the professional model that has been espoused as the panecea, something easy to do when there is no personality, with all the attendent baggage, in play, here a City Manager who does not have the inclination to supply 24/7 problem solving to his homies.

I suspect he is not the exception.

“You can’t go to the grocery store, cafe or convenience store without someone telling you they have a leak in the front yard or a pothole in their driveway,â€Â￾ he said.

I am sure the Mayor is subject to such local pressure to solve problems, too.

Smaller cities paying in the $60K - $70K range, writes Blumenthal, “are bumping up against the tough realities.â€Â￾

“Perry, a northern Oklahoma city of 5,000, voted in November for such a change, leaving Mayor Jill Zimmer wondering how to fill the job, and at what cost.

“It is a small pool,â€Â￾ Ms. Zimmer said, “and it seems to be shrinking all the time…...â€Â￾

“There’s a hell of a lot of cities,â€Â￾ Mr. Finnie said, “and they’re not going away. As the supply of managers goes down, the money goes up.â€Â￾

Source:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/11/us/11 ... nd&emc=rss

With a labor/market reality check from the New York Times, the case to shift to the City Manager form of government seems weak, no matter how high the ideal of professionalism.

Kenneth Warren