Mayor Vs. Manager

why hasn't anyone running for the commission stated their opinion on mayor vs. manager?

-Commenter

I can't speak for the other candidates on this one. Believe it or not, I've only met most of these folks once, at the information hearing a few weeks back. (See the link along the side.) But even if I knew their preferences I'd leave it up to them to state them (they can do so here if they'd like. )

So I'll take the question differently.

What's your opinion on mayor vs. manager?

First, let me say the review of the charter--if approved by voters next month--will look well beyond this issue. As the description on the side explains, this would be a comprehensive analysis of city government. It could affect the council, school committee and other city boards with the single purpose of making government more efficient and more responsive. Unfortunately, I'm sure the Charter Review question is seen by some as a referendum of whether we want a city manager or a mayor, but that isn't the case, not at all.

That said, I get that the mayor/manager issue is THE Big Issue for folks considering the question. So here's my take.

If I'm lucky enough to be elected, I'll go into the review with an open mind. I'll listen to the discussion. Find the pros and cons of both through the research of myself and others and ultimately decide what's the best system of government for the city, be it with a manager or a mayor at the helm.

To be sure, there are downsides to both. A city manager is a professional position, no doubt, so the person should bring significant and relevant experience to the job. That said, the person answers directly to an elected body so they can't help but be influenced by politics. Plus, city councils--the typical hiring body--can make bad hires just like anyone else, so there are no guarantees.

A mayor, on the other hand, answers directly to the electorate, including the city workers and others who vote or influence elections. They also usually haven't had experience managing a $50m revenue per year entity with how every many number of workers underneath them (hundreds at least.) So every election is a crap shoot. The interview process in this case--the election--really doesn't address actual management skills. We talk mainly of big ideas and goals.

In short, I see the strengths and weaknesses of both.

But, gun to my head, I favor mayor over manager with the possibility of a four-year, rather than two-year term. I think the mayor needs more time to implement plans. I also think we'd draw an even better field of candidates if we offered a greater degree of job security.

But I do reserve the right to have my mind changed over the next two years if I'm lucky enough to be elected. So if the only boxes on your score card is mayor or manager I can't tell you which one to check.