In case you missed it, a group of citizens have undertaken an ambitious effort to review the city's charter to see if a change is needed. At this point, the group is just collecting signatures to put the simplest of questions on the Nov. ballot: Should a committee be formed to do such a review. (Paraphrasing of course.)
Moak's applying for the Winthrop job, which pays twice what he currently makes, raises the question of compensation for the city's chief executive. But that's only one question, and a I dare say one of the less interesting ones.
The more compelling question is should we even have a mayor or would the city be better off with a manager or administration making the day-to-day business decisions with broad direction from the city council.
Or, for those people eager to retain the ability to directly hire and fire the chief executive, should a mayor be given a four-year term instead of two, giving them more time to manage and requiring less campaigning.
The group put together a nice primer and published it in the Daily News two weeks ago. Read it here. I'll try to link to additional material as it's available.
A few months back someone asked me why I was in favor of a charter change. The honest answer is, I'm not certain that I am. I do like the fact a mayor answers directly to me. However, at times I wonder whether I might actually have more influence over a
But I am in favor of taking a look at the current structure.
Anyway, I'll be posting on this again. The real reason I'm writing is to say that I'll be collecting signatures as well. If you're interested in signing a petition shoot me an email and I'll make sure you get the chance.
5 comments:
Tom,
If the citizens of Newburyport can't agree on a parking lot without wailing and gnashing their teeth; how on Earth can they be expected to agree to changing the city charter? And if a change in the charter is voted in by anything other than an overwhelming margin it will set the state for turmoil, grief and destructive politics for years to come.
I think Moak's pursuit of the job in Winthrop says more about John Moak than it says about the job of being Mayor of Newburyport in the same way that Mead's departure said more about her opportunistic personality than the office of Mayor. Just my opinion, of course.
a city manager would take away our most fundamental democratic right, the ability for each citizen to vote for their leaders. Giving the city council the power to hire or fire someone strips the people of their rights and their power and shouldn't be allowed.
IF enough signatures are collected, the ballot question in November will essentially ask us if we wish to start the Charter Review/Renew process; select (via the same ballot) a group of nine to review our form of governance against that of other Massachusetts cities in public forums, take input from the public, research the experiences of other Cities who have gone through the Review process, weigh the pros and cons of change and present a report, recommending change or no change.
If a change is recommended, we will get a chance to vote on it in November of 2011.
One recommendation possibility is an elected mayor and a City Manager. The mayor could be directly elected (for tight accountability to the voter) or selected by the City Council. He/she would act as would a Chairman of the Board in a corporation (a part-time, stipend position - like current CC President Shanley), with the Council as the Board members.
The City Manager would take his/her marching orders (measurable goals & objectives) from this body of Mayor and Council, may or may not have a contract term of office, and would certainly still be answerable to the voters through the Mayor and Council.
'Do the job - keep the job.'
The only difference from what we have now would be that we could hire a professional municipal manager, with qualifications, education and experience doing the job. As in Mayor Moak's current situation in Winthrop, even the interview process would be public.
In my opinion, this is one alternative that maintains accountability to the voter while gaining the expertise, experience and probable longevity of a professional. For this I would be willing to pay more salary. Winthrop is a good example of this model.
BOTTOM LINE; there is no reason to change UNLESS it is obvious that it would lead to efficiencies and save money in the long run.
Having the Charter Review is, in my opinion, a "FISCAL PHYSICAL." A healthy exercise.
Finally to Anonymous' point; we often elect City Mayors and Councilors on the slimmest of margins already, and chaos does not necessarily ensue.
I believe that we would benefit greatly by having a charter review of the structure of our city government. Ninety years is long enough without a thorough reexamination by a group of thoughtful, interested citizens. Everyone I have talked to in the last decade has grumbled that they would like to see a four year term for Mayor – “too much quick turnover.”
Staunton VA was the first American city to adopt the City Manager form of government in 1908. It was part of the progressive movement before WWI. After the terrible Galveston Hurricane of 1901, Galveston TX adopted a Commission form of government to gain more efficiency and expertise in government. In a city commission government, voters elect a small commission, typically from five to seven members, on a plurality-at-large basis. These commissioners constitute the legislative body of the city and as a group are responsible for taxation, appropriations, ordinances, and other general functions. Individual commissioners are assigned responsibility for a specific aspect of municipal affairs, such as public works, finance, or public safety. One commissioner is designated to function as chairman or mayor, but this was largely a procedural or ceremonial designation and typically did not involve significant additional powers beyond that exercised by the other commissioners. As such, this form of government blends legislative and executive branch functions in the same body. The major city to use the Commission form today is Portland, Oregon. The Commission form has been replaced in most areas by the City-Manager form today.
Lincoln Steffans’s classic muckraking book, The Shame of the Cities [1904] brought widespread reform in municipal government. The corruption and inefficiencies of patronage dominated city bosses – read Gillis? – led to a desire to gain more rationality, efficiency, and expertise in municipal affairs. We would continue to have policy set by our elected Mayor (a 4 year-term?) and City Council (some at-large and some by ward, as now), but have the administrative day-by-day work, such as budgets, collective bargaining, the letting of contracts, the oversight of departments, etc. done by a professional who has done graduate work in public administration at Littauer or the Kennedy School, both at Harvard. We would have policy made in the most democratic process and day-by-day administration carried on by governmental professionals of the highest quality. Newburyport is an attractive small city and we should be able to attract and experienced, capable person as City Manager.
Tom Lyons
Tom,
This is literally the best blog on the planet. I'm amazed by your quick wit and insights.
Keep up the good work.
-Tom Salemi
p.s. just having fun after posting Tom Lyons' item for him.
Post a Comment