City Council gets a master class on changing government

[This story has been updated. See last item.]

Changing to a council-manager government is not that hard to do, the Gig Harbor City Council learned last week. But there could be complications — such as a deadlocked council and a race for mayor no one can win.

The City Council met during a live-streamed study session Jan. 7 for what amounted to a two-hour seminar on changing a city’s mode of government. The tutors were two experts from the Municipal Research and Services Center, a Seattle-based nonprofit that advises cities and towns.

“Fifty-four cities in Washington, representing about 40 percent of the population of the state, have council-manager governments,” Tracy Burrows, the MRSC executive director, told the council. “Generally, these tend to be medium-to-large-size cities.”

Nearby council-manager cities, she noted, include Tacoma, Lakewood, Fircrest and Fife.

In the last 50 years, 19 Washington cities have switched to council-manager governments, Burrows said, although four of them — Snohomish, Ferndale, Goldendale and Ephrata — eventually changed their minds and switched back.

In the cities that adopted council-manager, “Usually it has been because something has gone wrong,” she said. “There has been some kind of scandal, and so there is a sense of, ‘OK, we need to change.’”

Although no one brought it up, interest in the council-manager form in Gig Harbor has been piqued recently by complaints about Mayor Kit Kuhn, whom city employees describe as rude, verbally abusive and controlling. More than 20 employees, including department heads, have left the city since Kuhn became mayor in 2017, and a recent employee survey was scathing.

Strong-mayor is traditional

Gig Harbor has a traditional strong-mayor government, in which the mayor is elected separately and has extensive powers, including hiring and firing, and enjoys a veto over the city council.

In a council-manager government, day-to-day functions are handled by a professional city manager hired by and reporting to the council. The mayor is selected from among council members and has a mostly ceremonial role.

“Actually, I dislike the term ‘ceremonial,’” said Andrew Neiditz, a former Lakewood city manager who was the second MRSC expert. “I like to think of the mayor as the ‘president’ or ‘leader’ of the council.”

There are a couple flavors of council-manager government, Burrows noted. In the most common, the council selects the mayor from among its members. In another, the mayor is separately elected, but still sits on the council and has no more power than any other council member.

“This is common in other states, for example, Oregon,” Burrows said. “But it is rather rare in Washington.”

Tacoma, Olympia and Vancouver are the only cities in the state with elected mayors combined with council-manager government, she noted. Tacoma’s mayor has some additional powers granted to her under the city’s charter.

In all iterations of council-manager, the city manager is a hired employee who must follow the instructions of the council. He or she has no veto, and can be fired at will.

“That means the council sets the agenda,” Burrows said.

It’s not hard, but …

Shifting to council-manager is actually fairly easy, if that’s what a city’s residents want, Burrows explained. It takes only a simple majority of voters. The question can be placed on the ballot either by a vote of the city council, or by a petition signed by 10 percent of residents who voted in the last general election.

(It is unclear which election is meant. The last election for Gig Harbor council was in 2019, the last for mayor in 2017. In either case, 10 percent would be between 400 and 500 signatures.)

An election would have to be held within six months. If there is no election scheduled within that time, there would have to be a special election.

After that, things can get complicated.

“If the measure is approved by the voters, it becomes law as soon as the vote is certified,” Burrows said. That means a sitting mayor would immediately lose his executive powers and become a member of the City Council until his term ends.

However, as the eighth member of the council, he would have a voice in hiring the city manager. And because of the even number, the possibility arises of a 4-4 tie.

And in a complication that sent heads spinning, if the vote took place in a mayoral election year, the candidate who won the election would not take office.

“It would be so strange to have this on the ballot, and have no idea if there is going to be a mayor or not,” commented Council Member Tracie Markley.

“That might make it hard to find good candidates,” said Kuhn, given the expense of running for an office one might never occupy.

“That could be a concern,” agreed Burrows.

The primary loophole

However, if the election were one in which the mayor was not up — such as a primary — that would not be an issue, said Council Member Jeni Woock, who noted there will be a primary election Aug. 3.

Council members peppered the experts with questions, many of them skeptical.

“I’ve had four separate bosses in a prior life,” said Council Member Bob Himes, “and I can tell you it doesn’t work. How does a city manager deal with seven bosses?”

Neiditz, who was city manager of Lakewood for eight years, put it this way:

“It works really well when there is a good flow of communications between the council and manager. The mayor is typically chosen by everyone on the council, and that mayor will meet with the manager to express their views. A good city manager is keeping the whole council informed, but he is working directly with the mayor.”

Neiditz, who is currently director of Sound Sound 911, has worked both as a city manager and city administrator.

He agreed with Himes, “You can’t have seven bosses. It just doesn’t work.”

Whenever he was buttonholed by a council member with a pet project, Neiditz said, “I would remind them that they need to get the whole council on board.”

Kuhn wondered whether a faction of four on the council can control the city manager, and whether managers risk getting fired every time the council majority changed. “Continuity could be a problem,” Kuhn said. “It’s taxing, and every time you bring in an interim, it’s even more taxing.”

“That could occur,” Neiditz conceded. “City managers get fired all the time. There’s not a whole lot of job security, and it’s intended that way.” But, he added, “when the communication is open, it works well, I found myself not worrying about getting fired.”

Who’s running the shop?

On average, city managers in Pierce County stay in their jobs four to five years, Neiditz said. “But I know some who have been in their cities 20 to 25 years. Lakewood averages eight to 10 years for a city manager.”

If voters approve a council-manager government and it goes into effect right away, Council Member Jim Franich wanted to know, “who’s running the shop at that point?”

“Generally, you would appoint an interim manager,” Burrows said. “There is even a cadre of people out there who do this as a career.” Or, she suggested, many cities making the switch simply appoint their existing city administrator as city manager.

Asked about downsides to council-manager government, Neiditz noted that most cities that switched back to strong-mayor did so because of backlash from citizens who felt “a non-elected official had too much power.” It can also be hard to get anything done if the council is divided into factions and the city manager has to please both, he added.

Burrows said MRSC doesn’t favor any particular form of government, and tries to provide advise to cities and towns who use either.

“We have successful cities that have mayor-council and successful cities that use council-manager,” she said.

There was a moment of levity early in the meeting while council members were waiting for the mayor to sign on to the video stream.

“Tell him we changed the form of government while he was gone,” cracked Himes.

Call for debate defeated

UPDATE: A motion calling for a debate on a ballot measure asking voter approval for a switch to council-manager government was defeated at a Gig Harbor City Council meeting Jan 11 by one vote. The motion, introduced by Council Member Jeni Woock, would have set a debate on the issue for Jan. 25.

The motion failed 4-3, with opposition led by Council Member Jim Franich. Others who opposed the motion were Council Members Bob Himes, Spencer Abersold and Tracie Markley. Voting in favor were Woock, Le Rodenberg and Robyn Denson.

Woock’s motion would have sought voter approval in a special election in April.

Chase Hutchinson contributed to this story.

Reach Kerry Webster at editor@gateline.com

This story was originally published January 13, 2021 at 5:30 AM.