Wednesday, March 14, 2007

A Political Fiction

Bully Pulpit
Lately, some local bloggers have been especially effusive in their praise of Carbondale Mayor Cole and the fact that he is such an active “full-time” mayor. Some call him “a real bargain” and “our Vista Volunteer” because he works full-time for a low salary.

For example, in regard to the upcoming election, David More argues for “voters to not to turn back the clock, and return to the days of the part-time Mayor . . . but to Spring forward with a full-time Mayor whose #1 job is making Carbondale a better place to live and work.”

Lost in all this admiration is the history of the City-manager form of government in Carbondale. The pundits miss the fact that the citizens of Carbondale legally chose to adopt the Council-manager form of government as a means of reforming the abuses of past municipal government systems. A full-time, partisan mayor is not an ingredient of the chosen reform.

Recall that there are three possible forms of municipal government. All three are found in southern Illinois. Most municipalities of communities with more than 10,000 citizens use either a mayor-council government (sometimes referred to as the strong-mayor form of government), a council-manager government (E.G. Carbondale), or the once prevalent, but now generally disfavored, city commission form of local government (E.G. Marion).

In the council-manager form of city government, mayors typically are part-time jobs because the council delegates authority to administer the details of government not to the mayor, but to the City Manager. The mayor is normally supposed to primarily perform ceremonial duties and act as a member and presiding officer of the elected city council that sets policy and gives the manager direction.

That is the way the voters approved the governance system for Carbondale and the way things worked well for decades before the current mayor took office. Historically, the Carbondale City Manager (currently Jeff Dougherty) has looked to trade organizations such as the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) for guidance on how to administer government in a non-partisan manner. The ICMA publishes eighteen best practices of operation for professional city managers.

Despite the many good intentions and efforts that Mayor Cole has, I suspect that there is an aversion in the community to the bloodless Coup d'état that seems to have occurred in city hall. The mayor’s position was never intended to be a full-time position. Taxpayers pay the City Manager a very hefty salary to professionally administer the affairs of city government without the need for the heavy hand of a full-time Mayor residing in city hall all day, every day. It is irrelevant that the mayor is willing to serve full-time or at low pay. That is simply not what the voters agreed to support.

Mayor Cole says he is running for office to be a full-time mayor. His opponent has clearly stated that she is running for the part-time office of mayor in keeping with the traditional council-manager form of government. In essence, they are running for different offices, but one of the offices is a fiction and does not exist.

This is not to say the mayor’s role should be marginalized. To the contrary, elected mayors are very important because they can use the “bully pulpit” to resolve divisive community issues and help lead a community to new solutions and opportunities.

There is a very real danger in supporting the continuation of a low-salary, full-time mayor position, especially when the person has sworn allegiance to one political party. First of all, it is a step backwards from the desired goal of professionalizing municipal administration by having a CEO-level administrator responsible for running government in a non-partisan manner. In the case of Mayor Cole, he is an avowed Republican with statewide political aspirations. This alone hinders his impartially when it comes to representing a non-partisan city administration, and makes all his actions (good or bad) suspect when he acts independent of Council direction or authority. Moreover, since “perception is reality,” any act the Republican mayor takes will be deemed partisan behavior with political overtones.

A second danger of a full-time, partisan mayor is that city employees will always feel either real or imagined pressure to operate in a partisan manner for the sake of job security, promotions and raises. With an non-partisan city manager stationed between the employee and the elected body of council decision-makers, employees have greater freedom to professionally act for what they see as best for the city, rather than what is preferred by any in-the-house, full-time, partisan mayor.

3 comments:

PeterG said...

Hi Bob -

Nice post, very interesting. I have been thinking about this too.

Only in Illinois is the first thought of government about corruption and not about performance. This is sad.

In Europe they limit workers to a certain number of hours a week. Are you suggesting that the city pass a law to limit how many hours a mayor or city council member can work? If they work more, it is bad? What should the limit be, do you think? 15 hours a week? 20, 25, 40, 60 a week?

Given that legally, the mayor and city council members have about the same standing in Carbondale. All of them can get anything on the agenda they want to. Isn't Brad's real power, that he is outworking everyone else? Is that why he was the most powerful city council member, by far, before he was elected mayor? Just understanding the budget, instead of having to lean on a city employee, is fairly powerful. How can you figure out any new initiative, if you don't understand the budget?

I'm kind of confused about your problem with Brad having statewide aspirations. Sheila is clearly playing at the state level too and has only promised not to run for a statewide office for a few years. I can't decide what is worse, when you have statewide aspirations or when you bring in the state senators on your own behalf and have statewide aspirations. I guess it is about the same thing, isn't it?

It is fun to have juicy comments to address to a well written post, hopefully you will enjoy this one.

Bob said...

The real issue is not the work volume or 'power' surrounding the current person in office. The issue is about the structure of reform government, the assigned roles of the elected officials, and the problems that are created when partisan mayors acquire too much control in a non-partisan local government.

The council-manager form of government was created, in part, to avoid the problems I described in the last two paragraphs of my post.

The previous comment by Pater that the mayor and council “have the same standing” is incorrect.

Similarly incorrectt is the statement that I have a “problem with Brad having statewide aspirations.” I don't; however, I do think Carbondale’s voters should avoid a full-time, low-paid mayor. I have explained why.

The Council-manager form of government was born less than 100 years ago to avoid known problems with partisan, strong mayors. Today, there are over 3,000 ICMA-recognized council-manager local in the United States. There is a reason that the governmet reform movement around the world has led to the growth in professionally managed units of local government.

Anonymous said...

Bob,

Looking around at what others are doing is not without its pitfalls. Many times people get into trouble "following the crowd" - see the South Sea Bubble for an early historical example.

In fact, I would argue that maintaining healthy dose of individuality is well served for not only people but their governments as well.

Is Carbondale better off with its current form of government? Hard to say. Getting a mayor who is insulated from the economic policies of the town by having a full time job that is virtually guaranteed for life might actually be worse for its citizens. Such a mayor can proceed on down their ideological path with little consideration for the economic consequences of their actions (or inactions as might be the case). Sure they can be vote out of office, but that’s not much of a consequence for someone who already has a job.

Can a powerful mayor be a problem as well? No doubt about it. If corruption takes hold the town is in for a really bitter tenure. But this is why we have anonymous voting, state's attorneys, federal prosecutors and judges. Marginalizing effective leadership is a heavy trade off for what might happen.