Anon2 comment taken from the below post.
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
Anon2,
The additional salary is a concern, but I do think you'll get more if you pay more.
There is an art and science in managing municipalities, and training, education and experience helps.
As for the hack charges, sorry not buying it.
First, a mayor can be just as easily influenced by a major developer--in fact those pushing the "dark side" theory suggest exactly that.
Second, who is more likely to be friend with councilors or city employees? A resident or a hired gun?
Third, I've got no stomach for the tired "This is Massachusetts we can't do anything right, mentality. It's counter productive."
Sure, you'd argue, but then we'd just vote that person out. Maybe yes, maybe no. But it's no guarantee. Popular people don't necessarily do good jobs.
Your last point is an important one. Who should manage our city? A fellow citizen who sees this as their duty and does the best they can to serve all their fellow citizens (including, btw, city employees?)
Or should the manager be a trained professional who has no skin in the game other than getting a larger paycheck for a job well done.
That's the question.
4 comments:
the question is, do we the people have the right to elect our leaders or do we leave it to a handful of elected officials (of which we can only vote for our own ward and the at large canidates) to decide for us? This is democracy 101, let the people have their say. As you said there are no guarantees, so why commit to an individual, under contract, for a large sum of money, who is not guaranteed to do a better job? Why strip the citizens of their rights? The people in the city should run the city, not contract it out to a hired gun.
Colorful language.
No one is stripping anyone of anything.
The point of this discussion is to alert the people to the petitions.
If enough people CHOOSE to sign the petitions, a VOTE would be scheduled.
THE VOTERS would then decide if a review is necessary and they would ELECT others to perform the review.
Said review would then likely be brought before OTHER elected officials, who would then VOTE on whether or not the question should appear on the BALLOT so THE PEOPLE will be allowed to VOTE for the government THEY WANT.
I see no stripping, and the people run the city either way.
More important, the review might actually produce results that suggest an elected mayor is the best way to go, with a four-year term instead of two. I see arguments for that as well.
Or not change at all.
It also could consider a change in the council, fewer councilors, more ward representation. I don't know.
I appreciate your stance, but I'd like to leave the inflammatory War Room talk aside for now.
I don't think you're being fair to Anon2 here. I also don't consier his/her language "inflammatory." It's OK to question whether the reopen the charter in the first place as well as to question putting an unelected person in charge of the city. It seems many of the charter change proponents have already decided they want to make changes, even before a committee is formed, and are saying we have an obligation to form a committee to look at the issue. We don't. People can voice their opinion on whether to change the charter by simply not favoring a charter commission. I don't find such an opinion "inflammatory."
Nor do I.
I found the use of the word "strip" to be inflammatory. I thought I said as much.
"I appreciate your stance, but I'd like to leave the inflammatory War Room talk aside for now."
"Strip" suggests that the someone will rip the rights away from the public.
My only point that is any change were to ever come it would have to pass through several democratic excercises: petition; vote; another vote; the formation of a committee of citizens that would vote; another vote and then another vote.
So any stripping would be done by the people themselves.
Hmmm...not the best image.
I absolutely respect anyone who feels the charter review isn't necessary. And I hope they chime in more often when people suggest our city government is ineffective. The government could use the defenders from time-to-time.
As for the pro-charter review folks, I honestly feel they don't have a preference. I know I don't.
I go back-and-forth on the mayor manager question. I also have some thoughts about whether we should add some democratically elected members to other city boards (more in a future post.)
But if a group of residents want to take the time from their busy lives to review our system of governement; to see if it holds up in today's world; to serve the people by presenting them with potentially positive changes than I say, that's a darn good idea.
Post a Comment