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.
Just wanted to comment on anonymous' post above, see the post below for more.
While we wouldn't elect a town manager, I sometimes wonder if they'd be more accountable.
How? I'll try to keep this hypothetical, but say there is an issue that affects one area of town more adversely than others. (The landfill, the clamshack, Plum Island Sewer, Wind Turbine, take your pick.)
The solution falls exclusively under the umbrella of the executive branch--the mayor's office, but the mayor isn't dealing with the issue to my satisfaction. So I call. I write. I blog, but he or she rests easy knowing that the rest of town really doesn't care about my problem. So I might get a pat on the head.
I complain to my city councilor. Afterall, I can have greater influence in my ward than I do city wide. I can talk to neighbors and hold meetings that might make a ward councilor uncomfortable.
But I get the answer: That's the mayor's decision, not the council's. And he or she is right. A councillor can complain at a meeting but the influence really doesn't go very far beyond the chambers.
Now, if the council is responsible for hiring and firing the person leading the executive branch, the story is different. If I can make the case to the councilor that failure to act might impact their chances at getting re-elected (again, I definitely have more influence over the election of a ward councilor than I do mayor)he or she might be more likely--and more able--to intervene.
So do I have more influence over a mayor elected citywide or a manager hired by the council?
7 comments:
what about when you have a councilor like ed cameron that wants to build something in a different ward, but the residents in that ward are opposed and have no recourse because they didn't vote for him?
at any rate the manager will be beholden to the council since they will be the one hiring/firing him, and will simply do their bidding, whereas at least if a mayor is in cahoots with the council and the people oppose it they can vote him out...
giving the people of a democracy the power is never a bad idea, but giving the power to a select few is.
Well,
In Ed's defense, it wasn't his decision alone to build it there. The senior center site committe identified the park. He was part of the decision, but so was Brian Derrivan and many others, including the mayor.
But you're making my point, at least partially. A ward councillor is far less likely to go against the will of his constituents, so you as a voter would have more control over the city manager than the mayor, who also pushed for the Cushing Park plan.
More directly, your councillor James Shanley--who voted against putting the center there--would have only had one front to fight instead of two. The city manager would be less likely to go against one of the folks who would rate his performance.
The mayor, meanwhile, probably picked up votes by pushing for the Cushing Park site. Shows leadership, strength and appeases those who want to see the center built.
You didn't really address the issue of accountability. What you're really endorsing is a system of checks and balances, which I can appreciate, understand and perhaps even support.
Thanks for commenting.
Tom:
Kudos to Chip Wyser and Tom Lyons for having the guts to sign their names, and for such clear writing.
Does Anonymous feel that Salisbury has less democracy than Newburyport? Neil Harrington, the Town Manager is hired by the board of Selectmen, yet the voters of Salisbury go to town meeting to vote on the budget, zoning ordinances, etc. By contrast, the voters of Newburyport select the chief administrator (the Mayor), yet have no direct say in the budget, ordinances, etc. So who has more democracy?
Unless Newburyport decides to adopt a system of government where all decisions are made by popular vote, power will be given to a selected few, regardless of whether we choose to stick with the Mayor/Council form, or go with a Council/Manager form.
Just out of curiosity, Tom, how do you know that Anonymous lives in Ward 3?
in anonymous' defense, just from a cost stand point a city manager is much more money, with little added (if any) benefit. It also makes it really easy to become a hack position, as one with many "friends" on the council can hold the job despite their ineptitude. this is after all, massachusetts. further, what is to keep a strong political influence, such as Karp, from corrupting the whole system? getting his guy in the position would certainly be of benefit to him. further, why create another layer of bureaucracy? Let the people elect a fellow citizen, someone that shares in the community, someone with a vested interest in making newburyport a better place, not because it's their job and how they earn a living, but because they live here and decided to serve their community. eliminating an elected official is a clear restriction on our democracy
James, why would anyone admit to such a thing if it weren't true?
Kidding of course, I can't confirm whether anonymous is a Ward 3 resident or not. Could be posting from Shanghai as far as I know.
Shanghai? The post could have come from Japan.
I hear you are big in Japan.
Councilor Shanley, you use an interesting phrase, noting that power in Newburyport is in the hands of "a selected few." That would be even more so with an unelected manager. At least the "selected few" now is also "an elected few" -- answerable directly to the people every two years. Sounds pretty good to me.
Post a Comment