The Observation Deck

Posted: **Fri Feb 28, 2014 11:28 am**

Scott Meeson wrote: as was brought up to me, what happens if we get a bunch of Scott Meeson's running for Mayor:Not really qualified to comprehend and/or handle all the finer details of what it takes to run a complex municipal government. Can this city really afford the time it would take to bring me up to speed? Can we afford to delay our progress because a "yahoo," such as myself, won an election from a slate of least desirable candidates? FEAR!

I would tell that person that running a municipal government (i.e. being a mayor) should not be as complex as they state. If it's so complex then it should be simplified. The bringing you up to speed and yahoo comment really speaks to their "residents are stupid and only we know what's best" attitude. Those people are part of the problem. Some people think what they do is so complex but it's engineered to be complex so only they can do it...it's called job security.

Does the mayor really run the City anyway? Sure, the mayor should have some big picture practical ideas. What I mean is from a day to day perspective. Does the mayor look outside, see the snow falling then call the director of public works and say "hey Joe, it's snowing outside...better get the plows moving...oh, and by the way the left rear tire on truck 2 looks a bit low...better check that out". I doubt it. The mayor relies on the competent professionals in the various director level positions to run their departments. At least I would if I was mayor.

Posted: **Sat Mar 01, 2014 8:25 am**

Charlie Page wrote:Does the mayor really run the City anyway? Sure, the mayor should have some big picture practical ideas. What I mean is from a day to day perspective. Does the mayor look outside, see the snow falling then call the director of public works and say "hey Joe, it's snowing outside...better get the plows moving...oh, and by the way the left rear tire on truck 2 looks a bit low...better check that out". I doubt it. The mayor relies on the competent professionals in the various director level positions to run their departments. At least I would if I was mayor.

Charlie

Of course you would. Who wouldn't?

The problems is as we learned from Dr. Keller's lecture on forms of Government. The
reason different forms of government have emerged over the way, has been abuse of
power, then a corrective move to limit the power. It was Absolute monarchy, that gave
need and rise to Constitutional monarchy, as the outcry of abuse from the serfs gave
way to take some power, and on and on.

In "Municipalities" a term a style first coined by the Ancient Romans as a way to collect
taxes but stay out of politics, gave way to various forms including "Commission." Some
cities still have a Commission, but City Manager grew out of a corrupt "Commission" style
of government.

Now the problem as I see it and read it is, Lakewood has a mayoral system being run like
a City Manager. Possibly morphing into this on its own. Nudged along by those that feel
all of Lakewood's government should really be an oligarchy. No matter, when you combine
forms of government, what usually disappears first are the CHECKS AND BALANCES that
have been designed into each form of government.

So either we have a Mayor, or council with too much power, or we have a City Manager,
that was hired from friends, that thought he was a nice guy, and could...

The Charter Review besides looking at cleaning up all the laws that have been made since
the last review and beyond, and looking at various aspects and deciding if there is something
they see that can be fixed, removed, changed. One of the things pointed out by Pam
Smith, a republican who once made a strong run for mayor, asked. "The sample successful
charter was only ten pages long, and ours is almost 60 pages. Should we simplify?"

So in a nutshell, you are correct on how to run a city in this day and age, hire competent
managers and directors, and hire a person with the best background from all over the
country that can "Manage" the town for the next "building spell," "park rehabbing spell,"
"Saving our century homes spell" or until they lack the skills then find the next one.

One interesting point of Larry's speech was a city that had gone from Mayor to City Manager
and then hired their manager from within the city limits. Corruption and failure followed.
To quote Dr. Keller, "The worst thing a city could ever do is hire a City Manager from within
the current city. Not only does it often lead to abuse and corruption, it is the worst way
to waste the entire process and the opportunity of change.

FWIW.

Posted: **Mon Mar 03, 2014 9:47 am**

Jim O'Bryan wrote:
Charlie Page wrote:Does the mayor really run the City anyway? Sure, the mayor should have some big picture practical ideas. What I mean is from a day to day perspective. Does the mayor look outside, see the snow falling then call the director of public works and say "hey Joe, it's snowing outside...better get the plows moving...oh, and by the way the left rear tire on truck 2 looks a bit low...better check that out". I doubt it. The mayor relies on the competent professionals in the various director level positions to run their departments. At least I would if I was mayor.

Charlie

Of course you would. Who wouldn't?

That's exactly my point. Why do we need to reduce the mayor position to a figure head, give council more power, pay someone more than twice what the mayor makes (plus relocation dollars and a golden parachute written into his/her contract) when the day to day activities are run by competent professionals at the director levels?

Posted: **Mon Mar 03, 2014 1:33 pm**

Charlie Page wrote:That's exactly my point. Why do we need to reduce the mayor position to a figure head, give council more power, pay someone more than twice what the mayor makes (plus relocation dollars and a golden parachute written into his/her contract) when the day to day activities are run by competent professionals at the director levels?

Perhaps the question you might be asking, is why would you elect a City Manager and give
him the power of a mayor, which in this city is a ton of power?

Or

Why would you hire a City Manager for the top city in the region and limit the search to only
the people you directly know?

Or

Elect a really nice guy, who is somewhat competent, and give him the future of a city, just
because he is in tight with money to get him elected?

Or

Allow the future of a city to be predetermined by a very small handful of non-professional
empty nesters that were busy bodies and just had to screw with something.

NOW lucky for all of us, that has never happened here, BUT...

Charlie, whose accounting skills are better, you or me?
Charlie, whose management skills are better?
Who can run the city better?
Pretty scary huh?

Just saying.

Damn we have been really lucky so far with an overabundance of quality in elected
positions, but god forbid, what happens if we are not that lucky some day down the
road, and some fool thinks the best way to serve the city is to close parks, crack down
on citizens and give our tax dollars to friends and cohorts for meaningless study after
study in a never ending line of...

Well, you get it, AGAIN thank god that has never happened here, but...

I am not afraid to trust the process, and let the thing unfold. I can argue both sides very
easily, but it is hard to say, "Competent Knowledgeable Management" is a bad thing, isn't it?

.

Posted: **Mon Mar 03, 2014 3:45 pm**

Jim O'Bryan wrote:Perhaps the question you might be asking, is why would you elect a City Manager and give
him the power of a mayor, which in this city is a ton of power?

Or

Why would you hire a City Manager for the top city in the region and limit the search to only
the people you directly know?

Or

Elect a really nice guy, who is somewhat competent, and give him the future of a city, just
because he is in tight with money to get him elected?

Or

Allow the future of a city to be predetermined by a very small handful of non-professional
empty nesters that were busy bodies and just had to screw with something.

NOW lucky for all of us, that has never happened here, BUT...

Charlie, whose accounting skills are better, you or me?
Charlie, whose management skills are better?
Who can run the city better?
Pretty scary huh?

Just saying.

Damn we have been really lucky so far with an overabundance of quality in elected
positions, but god forbid, what happens if we are not that lucky some day down the
road, and some fool thinks the best way to serve the city is to close parks, crack down
on citizens and give our tax dollars to friends and cohorts for meaningless study after
study in a never ending line of...

Well, you get it, AGAIN thank god that has never happened here, but...

I am not afraid to trust the process, and let the thing unfold. I can argue both sides very
easily, but it is hard to say, "Competent Knowledgeable Management" is a bad thing, isn't it?

.

I'm not really asking any of those questions Jim. You are much more in the know than me.

Anyway, how would having a city manager change any of that?

Would the Madison/Kaufmann Parks be open the same hours as the rest of the parks if we had a city manager?

Would the handful of empty nesters be less meddlesome if we had a city manager?

Would the taxpayers have bought a drone if we had a city manager?

Would our city manager contract with two salt suppliers rather that only one?

Would we have had the faux budget crisis in 2008 if we had a city manager?

Would <insert any complaint here> be non-existent if we had a city manager?

Tell me how things would be different if we had a city manager

Posted: **Mon Mar 03, 2014 6:07 pm**

Charlie Page wrote:You are much more in the know than me.

Charlie,

You raise excellent questions.

But why is Jim O'Bryan more in the know than you, Charlie?

As Ed Favre - a longtime, respected, elected official - said in another thread:

Edward Favre wrote:I'd like to hear why the City Manager conversation is being put forth in the first place. What is the problem(s)? Who advocates it?

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=12463

Mr. Favre's questions strike at the heart of the matter - i.e., the topic of this thread.

Steve Davis recently posted the following in this thread:

stephen davis wrote:We used to have some great discussions here on "The Deck". We still can, even about this same topic, but great discussions will not emerge from the blatantly false statements I am seeing in other more-recent topics relative to government in Lakewood. Disrespect for truth and process will not not advance our community.

Lively, even edgy, discussion is fine, but bring facts, informed opinions, and sincere questions to these events.

Frankly, Mr. Favre's questions aren't lively or edgy. Nor are your questions, Charlie.

But Mr. Favre's questions are sincere. As are your questions, Charlie.

And Mr. Favre's questions remain unanswered. As have your questions, Charlie.

Admittedly, Mr. O’Bryan has tried to answer the questions raised by both Mr. Favre and you, Charlie.

I don't believe that Mr. O'Bryan has made blatantly false statements on this topic.

I don't believe that Mr. O'Bryan has disrespect for the truth - whatever truth that may be - on this topic.

I don't believe that Mr. O'Bryan has disrespect for the process - whatever process that may be - on this topic.

While I value and appreciate what Mr. O’Bryan brings to the discussion on this topic, it really isn’t fair that Mr. O’Bryan is being forced – by default - to answer everyone’s questions on this topic.

And I don't think that Mr. Davis is seeing the great discussion emerge that he is longing for - here, on "The Deck" - about this same topic because we haven’t seen him answer any of the questions posed by Mr. Favre or you, Charlie - here, on "The Deck."

So, again, fast forwarding to 2014:

Edward Favre wrote:I'd like to hear why the City Manager conversation is being put forth in the first place. What is the problem(s)? Who advocates it?

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=12463

Matt

Posted: **Tue Mar 04, 2014 8:21 am**

Matthew John Markling wrote:
Charlie Page wrote:You are much more in the know than me.

But why is Jim O'Bryan more in the know than you, Charlie?

It's part of Jim's job as owner/publisher and Deck Meister to be in the know. He's all over the place talking to everyone

Matthew John Markling wrote:As Ed Favre - a longtime, respected, elected official - said in another thread:
Edward Favre wrote:I'd like to hear why the City Manager conversation is being put forth in the first place. What is the problem(s)? Who advocates it?

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=12463

Mr. Favre's questions strike at the heart of the matter - i.e., the topic of this thread.

Yes, these questions do strike at the heart of the matter.

How would things be different if we had a city manager, figure head mayor and a more powerful council?

Who would check council's power? (other than voting every four years)

What would a city manager have done differently in the last 8 years?

Are we ready to pay a city manager $140,000 a year salary plus car plus relocation plus a nice severance package plus whatever other perks are negotiated?

I'm not against the city manager form. But with such a big change in structure looming (or not looming), I'd like to be informed and have Ed's questions answered, have my questions answered and anyone else's questions answered.

Matthew John Markling wrote:And I don't think that Mr. Davis is seeing the great discussion emerge that he is longing for - here, on "The Deck" - about this same topic because we haven’t seen him answer any of the questions posed by Mr. Favre or you, Charlie - here, on "The Deck."

I know Steve (Mr. Davis) is an advocate of the city manager form. Maybe after the recommendations of the charter review commission are made public, he can provide his viewpoint.

Here's a question for you Matt: who are "City Hall & Friends"?

Posted: **Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:09 am**

Charlie Page wrote:Here's a question for you Matt: who are "City Hall & Friends"?

Charlie,

There is a gag order preventing me from engaging in any lively or edgy discussion that may offend those whose names cannot be spoken here, on "The Deck."

Nonetheless, as Helena Ravenclaw said, “If you have to ask, you'll never know. If you know, you need only ask.”

Matt

Posted: **Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:11 am**

Matthew John Markling wrote:
Charlie Page wrote:Here's a question for you Matt: who are "City Hall & Friends"?

Charlie,

There is a gag order preventing me from engaging in any lively or edgy discussion that may offend those whose names cannot be spoken here, on "The Deck."

Nonetheless, as Helena Ravenclaw said, “If you have to ask, you'll never know. If you know, you need only ask.”

Matt

Posted: **Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:13 am**

Matthew John Markling wrote:
Charlie Page wrote:Here's a question for you Matt: who are "City Hall & Friends"?

Charlie,

There is a gag order preventing me from engaging in any lively or edgy discussion that may offend those whose names cannot be spoken here, on "The Deck."

Nonetheless, as Helena Ravenclaw said, “If you have to ask, you'll never know. If you know, you need only ask.”

Matt

Matt if a call from a friend and client saying "Get a hold of yourself, act your age" is seen as a gag order. Then so be it.

That interpretation does not even seem remotely childish. :roll:

How many posts since that conversation? 32? How many edited? Oh none. :roll:

.

Posted: **Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:25 am**

Jim O'Bryan wrote:
Matthew John Markling wrote:
Charlie Page wrote:Here's a question for you Matt: who are "City Hall & Friends"?

Charlie,

There is a gag order preventing me from engaging in any lively or edgy discussion that may offend those whose names cannot be spoken here, on "The Deck."

Nonetheless, as Helena Ravenclaw said, “If you have to ask, you'll never know. If you know, you need only ask.”

Matt

Matt if a call from a friend and client saying "Get a hold of yourself, act your age" is seen as a gag order. Then so be it.

That interpretation does not even seem remotely childish.

How many posts since that conversation? 32? How many edited? Oh none.

.

Jim,

While you and I never had the conversation you are referring to above, my quote above has absolutely nothing to do with you.

I know that is hard for you to believe - a post having nothing to do with you.

I'm paraphrasing and quoting Battlestar Galactica and Harry Potter in reference to Charlie's question about who are "City Hall & Friends."

While my post is probably "off topic," it has nothing to do with you.

And, yes, referencing Battlestar Galactica and Harry Potter is totally childish.

But it's frivolity, Jimmy.

Good grief.

Did I just wake up and find myself on TMZ?

Matt

Posted: **Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:32 am**

Matt/Charlie

The question was answered.

When you have a mayor acting as a city manager. You have just given the City Manager
and the mayor more power then outlined in the Charter.

Now I realize you Matt as a lawyer could care less about the actual charter or how it is
carried out, and you Charlie, confused over the idea of hiring the best you can afford let
me try this one more time.

Let's say you have a small mom and pop business that takes in say $34,000,000 a
year, and you decide that with all the money being spent you MIGHT look at someone to
run it. Does it makes sense to look at as many resumes as possible, or wait until people
throw their name in a hat and then choose through popularity and name recognition?

Now that is a great plan, and I understand this community hates plans. Let's see,
hmmmm last time there was one, errrrr, ahhhhh errrr. Well next time... And even then
we are electing/hiring someone that rarely keeps their word to the residents who voted.
Then throw in the various ways to slide "favorites" into spots through appointments, and I
have to believe we have indeed been lucky so far. When do we take running the city
seriously? When do we develop a plan? $40 million? $50 million?

You take your trash to the curb each week, in the city almost never had trash on the
street so that an elected official could have a single bullet point in their campaign
literature. Something that had it not been for needing that bullet point would have
cost the average household $2.00 a year. I just do not see a competent manager
doing that. Though they could, they are humans.

I am fully aware of the problems with "Managers" having gone through 2 myself at AGS,
and watching BP "Manage" themselves out of the top 500.

At the same time, I cannot help but wonder is there a better way to run a community?

But I guess having a serious discussion about that is a ridiculous thought.

Because at the end of the day I might be a "City Manager Hugger, City Manager Hugger."

Again so be it. Let me be tagged with the terrible sign of wanting competent management.

I now leave with my head hanging low, feeling so bad about myself. :roll:

.

Posted: **Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:40 am**

Jim O'Bryan wrote:Now I realize you Matt as a lawyer could care less about the actual charter or how it is carried out ...

Jim,

Okay, I'll play along.

As a lawyer, I see lots of things in the current, actual city charter that need addressed.

But, this thread is entitled, "Keller's View: Replace Lakewood Mayor with City Manager."

Nowhere within the four corners of the current, actual city charter will you find the words, "city manager."

So, yet again, fast forwarding to 2014:

Edward Favre wrote:I'd like to hear why the City Manager conversation is being put forth in the first place. What is the problem(s)? Who advocates it?

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=12463

And it really is okay if someone else jumps in and answers Ed Favre's questions.

Matt

Posted: **Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:42 am**

Matthew John Markling wrote:
Charlie Page wrote:Here's a question for you Matt: who are "City Hall & Friends"?

Charlie,

There is a gag order preventing me from engaging in any lively or edgy discussion that may offend those whose names cannot be spoken here, on "The Deck."

Nonetheless, as Helena Ravenclaw said, “If you have to ask, you'll never know. If you know, you need only ask.”

Matt

Since when have you been worried about offending anyone?

If you can't reveal who are "City Hall & Friends" then how is anyone to take you seriously when you write of "City Hall & Friends"?

Posted: **Tue Mar 04, 2014 10:03 am**

As a side note, it really is hard to respond to comments raised by Jim O'Bryan when he has the power to edit the content of his posts while everyone is three posts ahead.

The Observation Deck

Keller's View: Replace Lakewood Mayor with City Manager

Re: Keller's View: Replace Lakewood Mayor with City Manager

Re: Keller's View: Replace Lakewood Mayor with City Manager

Re: Keller's View: Replace Lakewood Mayor with City Manager

Re: Keller's View: Replace Lakewood Mayor with City Manager

Re: Keller's View: Replace Lakewood Mayor with City Manager

Re: Keller's View: Replace Lakewood Mayor with City Manager

Re: Keller's View: Replace Lakewood Mayor with City Manager

Re: Keller's View: Replace Lakewood Mayor with City Manager

Re: Keller's View: Replace Lakewood Mayor with City Manager

Re: Keller's View: Replace Lakewood Mayor with City Manager

Re: Keller's View: Replace Lakewood Mayor with City Manager

Re: Keller's View: Replace Lakewood Mayor with City Manager

Re: Keller's View: Replace Lakewood Mayor with City Manager

Re: Keller's View: Replace Lakewood Mayor with City Manager

Re: Keller's View: Replace Lakewood Mayor with City Manager