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.
A couple points of clarification from one who pushed the referendum.
ReplyDeleteFirst, in the Manager-by-Ordinance form of government the Mayor only gained one more vote than he had/has in the traditional form. That was he had a vote in appointing/removing a city manager. In the Manager-Council form of government, which can only be accomplished by a vote of the citizens, the Mayor then becomes a full voting member of the council. That was not what the prior council did. It was suggested that they do that form and put it to a vote of the people, which they could have done, but they didn't want that because that would still leave the Mayor with more power than they wanted to allow him, and it would take longer and not be the sure thing it was with just the council making the decision. So the Manager-by-Ordinance form of government really was a power grab by the council. Yes the Mayor would still be the city's representative on various groups via his ex-officio capacity, but he would lose his authority to even put an item on the agenda unless the council changed their rules to allow that. The Council has the authority to put any item they want on the agenda at any time with only one member asking.
Second, after the referendum, the council could have immediately repassed the exact same ordinance creating the Manager-by-Ordinance. There is nothing magical about an ordinance passed or rejected by the voters that takes the authority away from the council to pass ordinances they deem necessary. Of course, there is the political risk of going against the voice of the people.
After a number of recent fights in cities regarding City Council's passing or trying to pass Manager-by-Ordinance laws, the state legislature looked at the issue and decided that it was probably not a good idea to give that power to the Council. Now any change in the form of government (which the Manager-by-Ordinance technically isn't, ask John Gielmann about that) must be done by a vote of the people of the city.
That was probably my biggest issue with what the council did at that time, and that was what I told anyone who would listen to me. I know that wasn't always the same message given by others.
ReplyDeleteI had originally put together a petition asking that the Council put anything regarding changing the 'form of government' to a vote of the city, since in fact it was the city voters who had just chosen the Mayor and had some expectation as to what his job was and I thought it only right that the citizens be given the decision as to whether that job should be changed. I gathered a few hundred signatures to that effect, just give the citizens the option.
The council treated me and those who had signed my initial petition extremely poorly. They said since I had not phrased the wording legally the way they wanted it, they didn't have to consider it. I wasn't trying to do anything but let them know that there were lots of people who cared what was going on even if they didn't show up at meetings and cause lots of grief for the council. They could have cared less.
They held a public hearing, which they were clear to point out at the public hearing that they didn't even have to hold a public hearing for this kind of ordinance. At the public hearing there were roughly 75 people. At that meeting many of the citizens attending did get up and speak. One lady got up and said she was not opposed to the change but was concerned that there was confusion about it. After hearing a number of other people's comments this lady got back up to say that she had changed her opinion and was against the ordinance. Of the people who got up to speak a that meeting not one person spoke in favor of the ordinance. Since that time at least one citizen indicated to me that while they were there and supported what the council was doing but felt uncomfortable expressing that in front of those who were there and were against the ordinance.
Many of those who spoke gave their unequivocal opposition to the ordinance and then went on to point out one or two provisions of the ordinance that they were especially uncomfortable with. A week or so later the council took those comments and used them to modify some of the specific points in the ordinance. Then proceeded to pass the ordinance. I tried unsuccessfully to explain to the council (this was before there was a 'public comments' portion of council meetings) that they needed to get more public support if they didn't want this to blowup in their face.
ReplyDeleteAs for my personal feelings on the issue, I could see both good and bad points in what the Council was doing. But my bigger issue was HOW it was being done. Even after I was elected to the council I never said that nothing about the goals of that council were bad, but they way the went about it was poorly executed.
I personally believe that the Council, even now, has more power than they realize. They can check the power of the Mayor if they want. The traditional form of government is called government by committee. The mayor and council are all responsible for both the legislative and administrative functions of the city. The city is structured they way it is now, administratively because that is how a previous council allowed it to be structured. That can be changed if the majority of the council feel that it isn't working the way they want. But, and this is the big issue, it takes at least 3 votes to make the changes. And it is much easier to keep the status quo than it is to make changes.