The Lakewood Sunpost's Idiotic Editorial On Council

[Bill Call]

"altruism is, in fact, the negation of morality"

There's just one problem with conservatism and self interest that I can see, though... What, exactly, would conservatives propose to DO ABOUT the majority of needful people in the world, who do not even HAVE bootstraps to pull themselves up by?

The trouble with having to keep looking over your shoulder, is that you keep running into things....

Gary,

I am a fan of Ayn Rand but not in complete agreement with her idiology.

As to what should we "do about the ... needful people in the world"? How about nothing but free trade and democratic traditions?

Some day I am going to do a post on Hong Kong and the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The general idea is: Hong Kong and the Gaza Strip were settled by refugees at about the same time. One had no government, no social safety net, no billions in aid and no UN agencies providing everything from soup to nuts. One became a sqaulid terrorist refugee camp and one became the wealthiest city in the world.

Which one received all the "help"

[Gary Rice]

Bill,

Just so people don't get the wrong idea, the altruism sentence that you have in quotes above, came from Ayn Rand and not me.

I always appreciate the opportunity to engage with you. You're a thinker, as I try to be (although the older I get, it seems the less I'm a thinker and the more I'm a stinker :-)

A good debater always goes for the gusto, by saying something like this:

"I certainly do not question your logic. It's your premise I find fault with!"

I'm not sure that I would be comfortable with the potential ethnic, racial, or socio-economic implications of your Hong Kong-Gaza comparison.

In fairness, I would call that an apples-oranges situation. The situations faced completely different political and socio-economic problems.

I agree with you that free-trade and democratic traditions are good goals, but how we define these terms is critical.

For example, you and I have done the round-robin concerning unions. I understand that you feel that unions are costly, but as you are aware, they helped to insure a better standard of living for people.

Now, because of these international trade agreements and government/corporate deals, we have been unable to compete with so much manufacturing in this country.

We WON WWII, but we lost the manufacturing war.

Look what we lost: watch making, cameras, TV and audio manufacture, clothing, textiles, shoes...the list goes on and on. For awhile, some companies held on by becoming non-union, and dumping pension plans, but before long, even this was too much.

We also are running the risk of losing the American Dream for the average American, at least in my opinion. Every-day people just do not have the financial resources to constantly re-train. Have you checked out college costs lately? A good friend of mine's son is going off to school. Even with a 4 point average and scholarships, the family is expected to come up with about 20 grand a year to make up the difference!

As you wrote about Ayn Rand, not finding yourself in total agreement with her, so do I feel the same way about a lot of things. I'm not paid to be anyone's lapdog. I lean liberal, to be sure, but there are a great many things that I am ultra-conservative about.

People are complex, and our words, far too inadequate to express our real thoughts.

We have such a needful world Bill, and I do not presume to know the answers to even a small percentage of its problems.

If I can just do a little good somewhere, anywhere, I'll be happy.

I'm sure you would agree with that, as well.

[Bill Call]

Bill--- There are no versions here. Facts are facts or you're calling the Finance Director a liar.

Which one is it?

Not at all. Our finance director is a hard working, dedicated and competent person. If you carefuly read her email you will see that we are in broad agreement regarding the City's fiscal problems:

Higher wages and benefits drive up spending.

Economic factors (mostly outside the City's control) reduce revenue.

To maintain wages and benefit levels the City spent its reserves.

At some point the bill comes due.

The administration seems to think that minor changes in City operations will see us through a temporary financial bind. Since I see the City's financial problems as systemic and ongoing I think major changes are needed to address the problem.

I pretty sure that one of us is wrong because bofus can't be right even here in Observerland.

[Dr. Larry Keller]

Bill and All:

Lakewood does face some severe challenges in the future. For the foreseeable future, population and resources will continue to shrink. In addition, many newcomers to the city will need extensive resources from both the city and the schools, and will be unable to pay their costs. Thus, the finances over the next five and probably more years will continue to be a concern, and an increasing issue.

I would like to see Lakewood respond strategically as well as tactically. Current budgets have been more a tactical response, focusing on balancing the current year and perhaps the next. With an aging work force much can be done in the short run to reduce personnel cost by retirements and selective replacement of retirees with new personnel with lower starting salaries. Benefits can also be tactically addressed such as having employees pay more of the costs, such as in medical coverage. However, this does not address the longer term issues.

I live in Lakewood because of the nature of the city - which Ken Warren articulates so well though I would also emphasize its Jane Jacob character - and the high service levels. Preserving the latter is a priority for me and one that demands a strategic long term response.

In light of the changes above, coupled with a need to replace and rehab much of our infrastructure such as water and sewer lines, I would prefer to see Lakewood be more strategic. I would start with professionalizing the government, strengthening a merit employment system, and ending use of the Council-Mayor form of government. I desire to keep councils both part-time and effective which demands a professional chief executive responsive to them. We control the Council by elections so the system is both responsive and effective.

I would also require members of council to obtain training. This would be a good investment for the city. These reforms would help prepare a system for better planning.

None of this is a panacea. As noted in this discussion by others, much of what is happening is outside of Lakewood's control. My recommendations don't promise we will prevail; they only maximize the odds for success as we face a less than desirable future. However, as the school system has demonstrated by hiring very effective professional chief executives who come to the position with executive experience in other systems, such responses have been very effective in dealing with difficult long term issues.

I am convinced, though, that if we respond strategically, we can indeed preserve that which we all seek - a Lakewood is in which we all want to live, prosper and seek our happiness.

[Gary Rice]

Dr. Keller,

As a CSU Poli Sci cum laude graduate, I understand very well the dynamics, as well as the advantages of regionalism and professional city management.

So that others understand, I am well aware of those advantages.

On the surface, it seems impossible that a city of Lakewood's size could be run with a mayor and council, particularly on the salaries that we pay them. Still, the place is run surprisingly well; having lots of great services to boot, as you allude to, yourself.

I would agree that some seminars for the City people would be in order too. There's quite a bit to learn out there, and knowledge is a good thing.

As you know very well though, regionalism and professional managers have been a tough sell around here. The reasons are simple.

We suburbs aren't really suburbs in this region. We see ourselves as full-blown cities, each with our own police, fire, sanitation...etc....and more importantly, traditions; including HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL!

And while some see our different cities as having unnecessary replication of services, others see them as epitomizing the right of local control.

With the police inter-city cooperative efforts, and other regional efforts, we do interact with other communities.

Would we be willing to forgo local control for professional management?

In my opinion, never. We LIKE local control and accountability.

Now, I'm a solid Tom George Democrat, but I'll say this flat out. If it came between having RYAN PATRICK DEMRO and a city manager to lead our city, give me Ryan any day of the week!

If it came between having GEORGE W. BUSH, or DICK CHENEY, or a city manager to lead our city, give me George or Dick, any day!

Elected Chief Executives at least look at the ballot boxes once in awhile. I want them to respond to what WE want, at least some of the time.

The flap a few days ago, over the Council Presidency, is enough to convince me that we need to continue to have an elected chief executive officer.

Wasn't it old Ben Franklin that said those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither?

You make good points Dr. Keller. As the old debater said-I cannot question your logic; it's your premise I have trouble with.

And that's my "strategic" response.

[Dr. Larry Keller]

Gary:

Thanks for the discussion. Somehow, in 2000, Americans found that the President is not popularly elected and rightly so. Electing chief executives can be more of a popularity contest and one fraught with dangers of losing representation. The founders feared any executive who said they spoke for the people and later events in Germany illustrated the danger.

In cities, executives are running a major operation involving politics, economics, etc. It would seem better to have representatives select a qualified executive and then hold them accountable. Election seldom hold executives accountable as voters seldom know how government was actually conducted on a daily basis. And popularity along with current issues can cloud holding executives accountable by voting.

As the national government is nearly remote from daily knowledge at all, separation of powers makes sense. In governments closest to the people separation of powers does not make as much sense. Too often it permits chief executives to gather most of the political power and thwart policies that may be both desirable and even popular. Typical municipal elections have low turnout and one issue can determine who will be the next executive regardless of experience, knowledge, etc. Thus a popular mayor needs only sufficient support from Council to sustain a veto to be able to yield immense political power.

I am not talking about any of the current office holders in Lakewood. In fact, Tom George, then a member of Council, did an excellent presentation in one of my classes. Ed Fitzgerald talked to one of my classes this semester. Rather I am talking about future possibilities that provide a more strategic and accountable government. I do think a system with professional executives also attracts more qualified people into politics generally. The key to good government is to attract and appropriately empower talented people. This is the bottom line for me and for the future of Lakewood, I hope.

I don't think electing a chief executive makes them more accountable as they are usually nominated by parties. As the coverage of Council by the Sun Post demonstrates, few voters can even find relevant information on which to act, especially about the daily conduct of government. Yet it is the daily conduct of city government that determines much of the quality of life.

I do enjoy the discussion. This is a dialogue greatly needed as we face our future. And, in the spirit of debate, I suggest augmenting your political science with public administration.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Dr. Keller

Welcome home. You have been missed.

The city does need and deserve an open serious conversation about our future. I fear we will get a shrill yelling match.

I wonder as you know this stuff far better than I.

1) Do you not see this administration as a hybrid of what you are speaking of. Mayor Tom George as the leader of a staff of professional managers? While I often disagree with Tom Jordan, he is pretty sharp. Is it not the best of both worlds?

2) Do you think that a steady approach is best for Lakewood. Shore up weak areas, cut fat in others, transfer many of the fun things from the city to the people, arts fest, flower baskets, 4th parade, etc. While the city concentrates on safe and clean.

Or in this down turned economy should we gamble everything on one swing for the fence?

I guess you got the house finished. Nice to see you posting again.


Gary

Bush Cheney!

I do not want to see our young sons and daughters going off to war in Garfield Heights, looking for the Top's Food Markets that have long since disappeared!

.

[Gary Rice]

Wheeeeee!

This is a good debate!

Well, regarding Garfield Heights, at least military leaders almost always favor the heights! Hey, at least Bush and Cheney could get Brennan's for us!

Dr. Keller,

Great post, with well thought out rationale for professional city management!

We do need this discussion.

I'm still going to amplify Jim's point. The mayor is accountable for the appointment of professional city people to run the departments..If you move direct accountability farther from the voters, you may risk even more apathy and alienation. Plus, could you find a good city manager for the mayor's present salary? I don't THINK so!

Wow, doesn't this sound like the old Alexander Hamilton Federalist discussions?

I'm sorry Doctor, I've still got to play Jefferson here, Power belongs with the people.

That's how I see it, anyway!

[Dr. Larry Keller]

Jim and Gary:

Oh how I wish my house were done; however, it is going well and we seemed to have sold our rental house. Regardless I just could not leave the fray, especially as Jeffersonians seem to lurk everywhere.

In terms of the best of both worlds, that depends upon one's values in part but I don't think such an outcome is possible. Whether a municipal chief executive should be elected or not - that is the issue. I am on the side of appointing the municipal chief executive and thus desire a system with no separation of powers but with a separation of the functions of policy and administration.

As one of my academic colleagues puts it, systems do make a difference. One way to look at that is to note which system - electing or appointing a municipal chief executive - provides more professionalism over time. Though an elected chief executive can be professional in all senses of that word (and I will address that issue shortly), appointed chief executives in a system that meets International City Management Association criteria tend to be more professional than most Mayors. I always like to place bets where I win in the long run and thus opt for the Council-Manager system as well as stay out of casinos.

In Lakewood we appoint all other chief executives, such as the School Superintendent and the Director of the Public Library. All answer to a public board. This general system makes the most sense given the size of the Lakewood enterprise and its budget. It holds chief executives accountable at the working level not the political level.

One advantage of an appointed chief executive is the removal process. It can be difficult to remove an elected chief executive and the effort to do so becomes highly political in the worse sense of that slippery word.

A separate issue is whether to have an office called Mayor in a Council-Manager system. Most (a little over 60%) such systems do have such an office and it is often separately elected. This is the case in Dallas and San Antonio, two of the largest cities with the Council-Manager system. However, the office is not the chief executive and is mostly ceremonial.

I prefer not to have such an office as mayor as it confuses voters and citizens. As most citizens have little knowledge of American government, much less American political philosophy and history (great to dialgoue with people such as Gary, Ken and Jim as well as Suzanne and Steve BTW), the presence of an office called Mayor becomes confusing. More significantly for me, it can permit a person who may not respect the system to harass the city manager from such an office. In fact, if one wanted to change the system of government by getting rid of the city manager, one strategy would be to become a mayor and use the ceremonial office for broader often personal political gain. I prefer to have a President of city council be the local focal point than an office called mayor.

If you have an elected chief executive I am not sure how you would hold him or her accountable for professionalism. Given separation of powers in a Council-Mayor system, Council can only deny a Mayor money or hold up any policies he or she prefers. This tends to lead to a messy politics and confuses more than enlightens the voters and citizens.

There is a general manager system in which a mayor may appoint a manager who has administrative authority. Shaker Heights does this by ordinance and has had very professional administrators. Bill Suchart served as administrator for nearly 40 years in Shaker, retiring in 2000 or thereabouts. One could have the administrator approved by council such as the current office of Law Director is in most cities. (In a few cities, the Law Director is elected.) However, how the system actually works depends upon the Mayor and I prefer not to depend upon one person for how a system works.

Professionalism for me, BTW, relates to values as well as knowledge. A professional for me is one who behaves on the basis deeply held values. For a professional chief executive this means acting constitutionally in all she or he does. This was the magic of George Washington. In addition, I would hope a municipal chief executive in the city the size of Lakewood would have previous municipal executive experience as well as professional knowledge of both politics and management. Advertising nationally and focusing on current community needs and issues is more likely to garner a professional chief executive than an election among locally grown candidates. And the issues that emerge in the election may not be the most serious issues facing the city. Interviewing candidates for chief executive is more likely to be a serious community dialogue than an election.

I am going to write a series of articles on local government, starting with an overview of local government and moving to the specifics of governing a municipality. Perhaps these can be published and contribute to a more reasoned debate.

BTW, I did debate changing the form of government with the Mayor, along with Tom Corrigan (I believe this was his name; he is an older person and quite knowledgeable about politics; I enjoyed meeting and talking with him greatly though we disagreed on form of government) and Sheldon Kramer, for three hours before the City Council. This was the second session the Council devoted to the proposals of the 2004 Charter Review Commission. Seven of the nine members of that Commission wanted a community dialogue on the issue of changing the form of government. The debate was a wonderful example of how close local government is to the people. Sadly, only 4 people attended that session of Council - actually I think it was the Committee of the Whole - and the dialgoue had little publicity. And none of the reporting - which was done by a reporter for the Sun Post who had not attended the meeting - was at all enlightening for the citizens.

Well, Jim, I must end another long post. I do need to write more articles but somehow I just can't help talking with my neighbors and fellow citizens over politics.

[Dr. Larry Keller]

Jim and Gary:

I must end by noting two points. I don't think electing a mayor is necessarily democracy at work. Too often it is a party affair or a fight among parties rather than citizens at work. It tends to lead to government by those who are involved in campaigns and parties rather than those dedicated to professional government. The two - party and professionalism - are not necessarily antagonistic but they are all too often not synonymous.

Note that Jefferson established the first political party in the United States and was a very partisan President. This is one reason he is seldom rated well as a President though he was a very effective legislator and philosopher.

Second, management is not an answer to community issues and concerns. Management is necessary and thus cutting out the fat, etc., is indeed valuable. But as McNamara and Rumsfeld have demonstrated, politics is more than management. Without effective politics - that is, community decisionmaking that focuses on the real issues - management does little more than stick a finger in what may be a very leaky system.

Effective politics requires participation of the most capable in the city and I think a professional system of government is most likely to produce that outcome.

Time to sleep! Talk to you later.

[Gary Rice]

Tremendous posting, Doctor Keller,

Lakewood is so fortunate to have thinkers who care in our community. For you to take a school night and put together that well-thought-out essay says much about your passion for Lakewood!

Thank you for that passion.

With deep respect, and in humility, I must reluctantly continue to disagree. In order to do so, however, I would need to frame my continued objection in the context of American History.

During the Korean War, if I am remembering correctly, President Truman fired General Douglas MacArthur over a disagreement about military policy. We allow civilian oversight of the military for good reason. Although turning more power over to a professional military would certainly be "more efficient", it could also conceiveably limit people's freedom, even leading to a military takeover, as we have seen in other countries.

The military has been subordinate to elected control in the American system. Although military men might chafe at this inconvenience, it helps to balance the great power in our country.

Some feel that city hall would also "run better" under professional leadership where direct control has been taken away from the voters.

Perhaps, on the one hand, they might be right. In a dictatorship country, for example, things often "run better"... or else.

It goes to the regionalism argument going on in today's PD. Would a regionalized government "work better"? In some ways, maybe.

But what we would lose...less local identity, less local control...These principles would be tough to give up.

It would also be more energy efficient to give up all our homes, and live in a single great longhouse; where we could huddle under the same blankets and warm up to the same fire, as some of my ancestors no doubt did.

That's not for me these days, though. Free men and women want freedom more than just about anything. Over the years, they've been censored, interned in concentration camps, murdered, tortured...all for the price of living as they want to live.

We celebrate this autonomy in our Cleveland area suburbs, and that's why regionalism, or city management that would sacrifice the ability of people to choose for themselves, will always be an uphill battle.

Wow, am I starting to echo Bill Call's thinking about Ayn Rand?

Whatever side we take to a discussion, at some point we may end up arguing the other side's point of view!