The Observation Deck

Jim, you are a bit wrong about DK's voting record. He has missed many many votes while running for President.

Bret, the political world can change greatly in two years. So we can talk about names, but whoda thought we would see the names Geiger and FitzGerald disappear from the scene just a year ago

If the mayor is seeking greener pastures, it seems to me that this would be the perfect time to institute a Council-Manager form of government for Lakewood. The last Charter Review Commission has already written a new charter reflecting the needed changes--and it was approved by them 7 to 2--some of George's own appointments turned on him. Council's political climbers ignored their recommendations--side stepped the report through the Committee of the Whole.

I remember talking to Ryan Patrick Demro when he was campaigning for adoption of non-partisan elections (which I was for) and indicated to him that Council-Manager was the only long-term solution to Lakewood's future development and continued stability. He agreed with me at the time but the sweet, shiny plum of the mayoralty sent him in another direction.

If the mayor moves on, this is a once in a generation opportunity to put Lakewood before politics.

On it's face, the whole council-manager thing sounds like a good deal...

You know the drill, you remove the political, and replace it with the professional guy.

Sounds great.

Except for a couple of things....

Professional managers can be expensive to hire...
...and more so, to fire...

Further...they are generally removed from direct accountablity by the electorate...

The people therefore, often have far less say in things.

And far less redress for their grievances.

I for one, want the ability to VOTE for my leaders.

Whether to put 'em in...

...or boot 'em out.

Gary,

Thousands (yes, thousands) of cities and villages in the United States have the Council-Manager form of government. It is not a theoretical construct.

Professional experience is expensive. Most people in Lakewood do not seem upset that the Superintendent of Lakewood City Schools makes three times the amount that the mayor makes. I would argue that politically driven mayors tend to cost more than a City Manager once you examine budget line items. Economic Development Fund--S250,000. New Police hires--$500,000. Political, not professional, and more expensive.

The City Manager is directly accountable to City Council. They hire and fire. The manager serves at their pleasure. They can dump her/him in a New York minute if performance demands this--the next Council Meeting if need be. This is faster than we can get rid of a mayor. City managers who want to be loose cannons will not be city managers for long. If anything, the accountability of City Council is turned up quite a bit.

Gary Rice wrote:On it's face, the whole council-manager thing sounds like a good deal...

You know the drill, you remove the political, and replace it with the professional guy.

Sounds great.

Except for a couple of things....

Professional managers can be expensive to hire...
...and more so, to fire...

Further...they are generally removed from direct accountablity by the electorate...

The people therefore, often have far less say in things.

And far less redress for their grievances.

I for one, want the ability to VOTE for my leaders.

Whether to put 'em in...

...or boot 'em out.

Mr. Brennan, I have no argument with your post other than the part where you make it sound as if running for mayor made me forget that I support the city manager form of government.

In fact, when the findings of the last commission were presented to council. I was one of only two members that argued to send it to committee for review and later adoption. Unfortunately, Councilman Seelie was intent on shelving the recommendations, along with other members who did not even find it pressing enough to read the findings.

At the end of the day, as I have explained to others before, this will only pass as a citizen driven ballot effort. I can tell you from experience that almost every member of council thinks him/herself a future mayor. And while there is nothing wrong with that, it distorts the ability for commission recommendations to get a fair hearing.

I can tell you from experience that almost every member of council thinks him/herself a future mayor.

Or county auditor, or state rep, or congressman......

Ryan,

Well, where do you stand now (if we will be saddled with an interim mayor, of course)?

Would you rather run for mayor or would you rather support adoption of the Council-Manager Charter?

Ryan Patrick Demro wrote:Mr. Brennan, I have no argument with your post other than the part where you make it sound as if running for mayor made me forget that I support the city manager form of government.

In fact, when the findings of the last commission were presented to council. I was one of only two members that argued to send it to committee for review and later adoption. Unfortunately, Councilman Seelie was intent on shelving the recommendations, along with other members who did not even find it pressing enough to read the findings.

At the end of the day, as I have explained to others before, this will only pass as a citizen driven ballot effort. I can tell you from experience that almost every member of council thinks him/herself a future mayor. And while there is nothing wrong with that, it distorts the ability for commission recommendations to get a fair hearing.

There is a lot of good information about the City Manager form of government at:

http://icma.org


.

From Matt Markling's blackberry!

NEWSFLASH: I'm not running for "higher" office. Press conference TBA.


.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:From Matt Markling's blackberry!

NEWSFLASH: I'm not running for "higher" office. Press conference TBA.


.

Thanks, Jim.

I just had VERY expensive Westlake coffee shoot right out of my nose.


Steve


.

Glad to hear Matt is sticking around for the longhaul

Hi Stephen....

Good to hear you enjoyed a Westlake coffee even though there are numerous coffee joints right here in Lakewood. If you can believe it, there are some who believe that the minute you leave Lakewood you are some kind of traitor....

Mr. Brennan,

I believe that cities can run effectively under either system. Whether I want a city manager is irrelevant. The question is what do the people of Lakewood support?

I am willing to lead an effort to put city manager on the ballot; however, I would not be willing to go it alone and many of my traditional allies on the issues that I have brought to the ballot are not necessarily as supportive of this issue. What can you bring to the table?

It is not practical to expect that any politician will serve out his term before running for another office, because you cannot predict with any certainty when another office will come open. It doesn't appear to bother anyone that virtually all our recent candidates for President were running before serving out their terms.

My concern is that we will have yet another candidate without much of a record of meaningful experience. But again, we seem very happy to vote for the best campaigner, rather than the candidate with experience. In fact. having a record seems to be a disadvantage to a candidate, as there is always something in that record that an opponent can make look bad. If Mr. Fitzgerald can get another office before his scheme to trash the refuse department blows up, or some other initiative goes wrong, that would be a wise thing for him to do.

My concern would be having someone being Mayor at the same time he was busy campaigning for another office, and perhaps holding down a third job at the same time. I don't think you can acquit the responsibilities of your current office while at the same time you are busy campaigning for another office. So I would hope if he starts to campaign, he would resign as Mayor.

As to having an acting Mayor, if that is a problem, we should have addressed it years ago, so now we live with what we did.

Since the Mayor actually has little power (council holds the power), I don't think you can change a lot by voting out a Mayor. My preference, however, would be for a city manager, as by education, training, and experience, such a person would be more likely to know how to run things, and where to find new ways of doing things, than most politicians. In my jaundiced view, politicians are essentially amateurs, who devote their time to avoiding making hard decisions, and to getting reelected. So I would be inclined to take my chances with a professional executive, who isn't likely to have his sights set exclusively on getting elected to higher office.

As a member with Mr. Davis of the last Charter Review, I wasn't sure where I stood on City Manager form of government. We prepared 2 copies of the Charter with both forms of government. I would have liked to see a good debate over several months with the League of Women Voters, PTAs, Chamber of Commerce sponsoring forms to allow the people of Lakewood to decide what form of government we needed.
That may make more sense now.

Another suggestion which was not incorporated into Charter Changes, but was discussed was to have the Law Director be an elected position. It is done in some cities and now again it may make more sense.

I may have missed something but why do both Dan Brady and Ed Fitzgerald seem to think Mr. Russo is vunerable? Why would he step down?

Why would this be a coveted position? Doesn't seem as "glamorous" as other jobs.