 |
| Redmond City Hall |
A previous budget discussion triggered Council to review municipal forms of government during their study session last night. For years, the City has been governed in the "Strong Mayor" format and still is. Like Council, our Mayor is elected to a four year term but also serves as the CEO and Chief Administrative Officer. For 12 years "Strong Mayor" John Marchione assigned Jane Christianson as Deputy Administrator Officer to carry out operations. Jane Christianson was terrific, a real pro, the best. He later hired two co-Deputy Administrators, and just before retiring promoted the Parks Director to COO, a new position. Mayor Angela Birney then replaced this COO with the Finance Director (a past City Clerk) who is a numbers and strategic person; less a manager and people person.
Council V.P. Jaralee Anderson conducted the study session with finesse. She went around the table asking every councilmember for their input. Unfortunately, CM Varisha Kahn was absent again, a valued voice. Her recent absences appear chronic, perhaps attributable to pandemic strife and illness. I wish her well with a speedy recovery!
Okay, sorry, I got distracted.
Fields was definitely pushing tenaciously for CB. He referred to the "I.C.M.A." during much of his argument. A few snippets: "political power and influence is concentrated in the Strong Mayor form. Under the CB Council has an equal voice in policy. Under Strong Mayor, loss of decision-making by Council "leaves a chilling effect on neighborhoods, he said.
V.P. Anderson asked Nina Rinkin (executive staff) if a commission similar to our "salary commission" is a possibility. Nina didn't know. She said $65K was spent on consultants to prepare for the ballot 20 years ago.
CM David Carson said "this was unnecessary, that Council has bigger fish to fry." e.g. the budget. Both Fields and CM Jessica Forsythe responded to clarify and eliminate misunderstandings.
Jessica was interested in learning more about the 1992 ballot and why it failed. She thought the public may have been confused or concerned about the cost. She needed to think about how a COO compares to a business manager. As is, our COO is comparable to a Deputy Administrator Officer while Mayor Birney is the Chief Administrative Officer and CEO. So far, our COO's have been hired from within. In my opinion, objectivity is diminished by a COO. Also, by hiring from within the skill set is limited to the COO's previous City work experience.
President CM Tanika Padhey wanted to wait for consideration till next year. CM Vanessa Kritzer had pandemic on her mind. Mr. Fields was pushing hard to keep the conversation going this year. It could be a long haul for Mr. Fields with Tanika Padhey and Carson in apparent opposition.
-- Bob Yoder, opinion 3/24/2021
My lawyer friend in Vermont had some choice words on Facebook: "We have a CB; an interesting issue to consider is which form of organization will be most likely to take necessary but potentially unpopular actions (such as budget cuts when necessary)."
Comments and opinions? e-mail: mayorcouncil@redmond.gov
While I am sure there are positives and negatives to both city forms of government, my immediate thought is that the current form, a Strong Mayor, directly voted in by the population, gives far more power to the electorate. In a Council/Weak Mayor situation the council hires the City Manager (correct?) so the people have no direct say. (Voters would have to tackle the whole council which is far more difficult and time consuming to do.) Personally, I like having a direct say with my vote for both Council positions and the Mayor. It seems like the voters maintain a more powerful position with a Strong Mayor. (And I am, of course, open to discussion and more learning!)
ReplyDeleteIt is not the case that City Managers are better than Strong Mayors. Nor is the reverse true. To change, there should be a reason to change. But, this argument by Steve Fields, which seems to be the primary argument, is a lie: Under Strong Mayor, loss of decision-making by Council "leaves a chilling effect on neighborhoods." This could be true if the City Council were elected by neighborhoods, but it is not — council members, like the mayor are elected by the city as a whole. If Fields' primary objective is actually to give Redmond neighborhoods more voice, he should be pushing to change how the City Council is elected, not pushing for a city manager. I don't think neighborhood council members is a bad idea, but it would take a lot of work since Redmond has far more than seven distinct neighborhoods.
ReplyDeleteI know Fields says otherwise, but I feel that his motives are suspect. He clearly wants to be mayor but he lost to both John Marchione and Angela Birney. Looking back, I did not like Rosemarie Ives as a mayor because she governed based on her own opinions rather than what citizens wanted or any research. John Marchione viewed his job differently. He used community input and research to guide what he did. I disagreed with both of them on some issues, but I agreed with Marchione's approach. Angela Birney is closer to Marchione than Ives, and that's why I endorsed her and voted for her. It seems to me that Steve Fields is closer to Ives in how he views the role of governance, which I realize is a bit ironic because a city manager, by definition, is closer to how Marchione and Birney have governed.
On balance, I lean toward a strong mayor and a slightly stronger council, because I like a system of checks and balances. With a city manager, there is no check against the council. Any argument for change needs to present actual problems it is addressing and actual advantages to a change. Right now, I don't see any such arguments.