Whenever someone suggests a change from one long standing status to something else, the almost certain response from the entrenched is “NO Way”. Frequently without considering all the information.
A group of local residents has taken exception with the way the city government is organized and is proposing that we change back to an elected mayor who is the chief executive of the city and a council that is legislative from what is commonly known as the Council-Manager form of city government to the Strong Mayor-Council form.
The basics of the two forms of city government are these.
STRONG MAYOR the city voters directly select the chief executive that lives in the city and stands for election every four years. He/She works with an administrator to comply with all applicable statutes. The elected mayor works with the council to develop policies and has the authority to veto legislation at times.
COUNCIL MANAGER, the city council members hire a professional public administrator who is accountable to them to manage the affairs of the city to comply with applicable statutes. The city manager is not accountable to the public directly and is not required to live in the city. The council majority selects a “weak mayor” with no legal authority to direct city affairs, to run the council meetings and to serve as a figurehead in the community and away from the city in various capacities as circumstances warrant.
There is plenty of data available to support the merits of both types of city government. One is not necessarily superior to the other. Like most large organizations, the people who hold the jobs have more effect than the titles they bear. It’s a matter of local preference.
In Snohomish County there are eighteen cities. Most prefer the STRONG MAYOR form of government. The only cities I can recall that choose the COUNCIL MANAGER option are Snohomish, Mill Creek, Mountlake Terrace and Bothell.
That would suggest the STRONG MAYOR is the preferred form of city government in our county. I don’t know of any cities contemplating a conversion to COUNCIL-MANAGER.
The reason most cities prefer the STRONG MAYOR is because they have a direct hand in selecting their executive that is accountable to them and who understands who he/she works for and as such is sensitive to their issues.
The COUNCIL MANAGER form of city government is like a board of directors choosing a CEO who is only accountable to the board. That CEO knows who he/she needs to keep happy and it isn’t the public.
At the time the city changed to the COUNCIL-MANAGER the world was different and the city finances were in the red. The thought was that a city manager brought professional management expertise to the city that a “non-professional” elected city mayor could not. At the time we adopted that change, it was the right thing to do for the times.
After forty plus years, things have changed. We have been disappointed by appointed city managers and had no ability to change without running for council to be one voice among seven. City residents are thinking they want the chance to reconsider that decision and to have a directly elected city executive again. It doesn’t pose a threat to anyone who lives in the city or to the affairs of the city locally or regionally.
At the time that the citizens proposed a ballot measure, the council decided to NOT SUPPORT the effort which is their prerogative. The fall back for the citizens was a petition which secured enough signatures to put the measure on the ballot.
The amusing thing is the amount of organized opposition to the measure suggesting that if it passes the city will somehow suffer. How can our city suffer if the voters decide to choose their own leader rather than leave it to as few as four council members?
I support this measure and always have since the days when I served as the WEAK MAYOR from 1991 through 1995.
No Loss for Words
STRONG MAYOR -WEAK MAYOR? You Get to Choose!
by Steve DanaWhenever someone suggests a change from one long standing status to something else, the almost certain response from the entrenched is “NO Way”. Frequently without considering all the information.
A group of local residents has taken exception with the way the city government is organized and is proposing that we change back to an elected mayor who is the chief executive of the city and a council that is legislative from what is commonly known as the Council-Manager form of city government to the Strong Mayor-Council form.
The basics of the two forms of city government are these.
STRONG MAYOR the city voters directly select the chief executive that lives in the city and stands for election every four years. He/She works with an administrator to comply with all applicable statutes. The elected mayor works with the council to develop policies and has the authority to veto legislation at times.
COUNCIL MANAGER, the city council members hire a professional public administrator who is accountable to them to manage the affairs of the city to comply with applicable statutes. The city manager is not accountable to the public directly and is not required to live in the city. The council majority selects a “weak mayor” with no legal authority to direct city affairs, to run the council meetings and to serve as a figurehead in the community and away from the city in various capacities as circumstances warrant.
There is plenty of data available to support the merits of both types of city government. One is not necessarily superior to the other. Like most large organizations, the people who hold the jobs have more effect than the titles they bear. It’s a matter of local preference.
In Snohomish County there are eighteen cities. Most prefer the STRONG MAYOR form of government. The only cities I can recall that choose the COUNCIL MANAGER option are Snohomish, Mill Creek, Mountlake Terrace and Bothell.
That would suggest the STRONG MAYOR is the preferred form of city government in our county. I don’t know of any cities contemplating a conversion to COUNCIL-MANAGER.
The reason most cities prefer the STRONG MAYOR is because they have a direct hand in selecting their executive that is accountable to them and who understands who he/she works for and as such is sensitive to their issues.
The COUNCIL MANAGER form of city government is like a board of directors choosing a CEO who is only accountable to the board. That CEO knows who he/she needs to keep happy and it isn’t the public.
At the time the city changed to the COUNCIL-MANAGER the world was different and the city finances were in the red. The thought was that a city manager brought professional management expertise to the city that a “non-professional” elected city mayor could not. At the time we adopted that change, it was the right thing to do for the times.
After forty plus years, things have changed. We have been disappointed by appointed city managers and had no ability to change without running for council to be one voice among seven. City residents are thinking they want the chance to reconsider that decision and to have a directly elected city executive again. It doesn’t pose a threat to anyone who lives in the city or to the affairs of the city locally or regionally.
At the time that the citizens proposed a ballot measure, the council decided to NOT SUPPORT the effort which is their prerogative. The fall back for the citizens was a petition which secured enough signatures to put the measure on the ballot.
The amusing thing is the amount of organized opposition to the measure suggesting that if it passes the city will somehow suffer. How can our city suffer if the voters decide to choose their own leader rather than leave it to as few as four council members?
I support this measure and always have since the days when I served as the WEAK MAYOR from 1991 through 1995.
Posted in Political commentary, Snohomish City Government, Snohomish Washington | Leave a Comment »