Here is how I understand things now:
Just over six years ago the city council voted to change our form of government from what the state code refers to as the "traditional" form with a mayor who is the CEO and a city administrator who is the CAO, to a form where instead of a city administrator the city has a city manager who is the CEO, and picked up duties that were the mayor's in the "traditional" form of government. This form is referred to as the city-manager-by-ordinance form of government.
The difference between a Chief Executive Officer and a Chief Administrative Officer are several, and I think they can best be summarized in how they operate:
Duties of the CEO:
- keeps peace
- enforces laws
- reports, remittances
- duties prescribed by law
- reports to council the condition of the city
- calls on residents if they need help enforcing laws
- appoints with advice and consent persons to fill vacancies.
There is more information in more detail at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_executive_officer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_administrative_officer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_manager
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council-manager_government
So originally the mayor was the CEO. Council members, if they wanted to discuss an issue with the city attorney, city planner, police chief, etc, were supposed to talk to the mayor first. The mayor typically had a standing directive to talk to the city administrator to get permission to talk to city staff. Otherwise doing so violated the chain of command. In this sense, the organizational chart on the city's website is wrong - the council should not be in the same box as the mayor, they should be in a separate box off to the side with a line connecting only to the mayor. This wouldn't indicate that they answer to the mayor, but rather that all the information they get in order to make decisions is supposed to go through the mayor, and that staff answers only to the mayor.
When the council voted to change to a city manager form, the former City Administrator was made City Manger, and picked up the additional duties of the CEO that were formerly the mayor's responsibility. The city manager then answered to the whole city council, rather than solely to the mayor.
The mayor was then given a vote in the council meetings, and continued to serve as the public head of Riverdale, serving on regional transportation committees, etc. The net result was to give more information to the council, and more power to the council, to whom the city manager answered.
This is how Doug Peterson, former State Representative, and current city councilman explained the two positions:
"Under the manager-by-ordinance form, the manager is granted more authority. He is essentially the CEO of the city and works for both mayor and council. He is able to run the city without waiting for the mayor's okay. Obviously, he must be able to balance his role and constanty work to be apolitical as all council members (including mayor) will have different interests. Still, I supported this form of government because a good, strong manager (usually with an MPA and legal training) is at the city full time and hopefully making decisions in the best interest of the city. A majority of the council can remove him/her.
"Under the current form of government, the mayor has much more control and responsibility. The mayor is very strong in this form of government but he also has a tremendous burden of leadership and responsibility -- for someone who is not full time this can be overwhelming in my opinion. A mayor makes critical decisions for the city such as hirings and firings. The mayor must be actively engaged, a strong leader, and available full-time. It is critical under this form of government to have the right mayor."
The decision by the council to go to a city-manager-by-ordinance form of government raised public outcry - I as a voter was told that the decision created a full-time position that supplanted the mayor's authority, that the mayor was now only a figurehead, and that the city manager had all the authority and was an appointed position, so therefore the voice of the people was decreased. It seemed a ploy by the city council to seize powers away from the mayor. In hindsight, it appears that the opposite of all of that is true - rather than an additional full-time position, it was a changing of duties for an already-employed member of staff. Rather than the mayor being only a figurehead, he could put more attention to serving the needs of the community in relation to other cities, the county, and state. Rather than the public having less voice, they have more because the council is reported to directly by the city manager instead of receiving all their information through the mayor who can control the flow of information as he sees fit.
Because of the public outcry, however, it went to referendum, and those opposed to this new form of government were effective in convincing the voting public of their arguments against it, and by referendum the city went back to the 'traditional' form of government with a city administrator and with the mayor as CEO once again. Because this went to the public for referendum, the only way to reverse the decision is by another referendum. My point in my letter to the candidates for mayor is that the issue was misunderstood by the public, as I explained in the previous paragraph, and as such, the city made a decision with consequences they are now living with, of a council that is less informed than I believe they need to be in order to make wise choices for Riverdale. Instead of the decision process being a team effort between council members who represent different professional backgrounds and perspectives, all information is funneled through a single position that has the ability to restrict the role and efficacy of the council. I believe that much of the criticism the mayor is receiving by so many parties right now, about poor communication or choosing favorites on the council, is not so much a result of him not doing his job, but rather of him doing his job the way it is set up. I would like to see whoever fills the position of mayor this next term do more to inform, involve, and work with the council, since it is my opinion that the voters of Riverdale did not get what they were expecting when they voted for the traditional form of government. Perhaps the people should reverse their decision, but that is not up to the council anymore.
