Rebuttal: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
I understand our city may be in the process of considering a change of government with a switch from a strong mayor system to one of a council-manager form. To be clear , the latter is nothing more than government by committee, with no single individual responsible.
Four years ago, our mayor and city council coordinated its day-to-day business with three separate guilds; today it deals with three Teamster Unions, complicating life for city leaders. I can envision the contract, and day-to-day negotiations with strong union leaders and a city council that has no one in charge as is the case with a council-manager government as being even more problematic.
True, there is a well-educated and experienced city manager that will function as a middle-man, just like there is today a city administrator with almost an identical function, education, and background. Today the administrator takes direction from our strong mayor after consultation with council.
Divided council
If we change our system of government, the manager will take direction from City Council only, one consisting of seven members, divided into two factions. Yes, that is correct, our council votes are typically decided with a 4 to 3 vote on most issues. No wonder many employees seem to favor a switch to our form of city government, as working with a divisive council will be much more agreeable to them while being expensive for the rest of us, than it is with a Mayor thatʼs singularly responsible and held to account by our citizenry.
Educational and experience levels have been brought up to advance the idea of abandoning our strong-mayor system , however both an administrator or manager working for the city require the same level of both. Our mayorʼs background has demonstrated a high level of intelligence as well.
This entire matter appears more a personality issue between a couple members of Council and mayor , than one of a substantive disagreement on issues. I have met Council Member Woock on several occasions, and known Mayor Kuhn for years. I’ve voted for both, both are I believe very intelligent individuals, with strong temperament.
Hidden costs
Iʼd now like to push back gently in regard to the Gateway article that correctly stated changing to a council-manager government is not that hard (Jan 14.) Itʼs also not that easy, and not without costs. The referendum itself could be expected to cost at least $80,000. Twenty percent of Washington State cities that had previously switched from a strong mayor to a council-manager system , found it distasteful enough they reverted back to their original system, happily accepting the additional costs in both time and money to do so.
One point of interest the Gateway highlighted is an obstacle the MRSC ( Municipal Research & Service Center ) representatives mentioned in implementing a council-manager system, is if there is a divided city council, problems will be ongoing. It just so happens as stated above, a divided city council, is precisely what we have .
It was mentioned that the spark that typically ignites the interest in changing a cities form of government is scandal or similar intrigue. To my knowledge , we have none.
Our wonderful city’s budget is in very good condition with a surplus of cash. Yes there has been some employee turnover ( mostly due to age related retirements ). It seems to me we are in better shape overall with the form of government we have now. Our roads seem well maintained , especially if we compare them to our larger neighbor across the bridge.
If we would like to change the tenor of our government , the most cost effective way to do so would be this November, which is a mere ten months away, with the election of a mayor and city council that reflects a consistent philosophy towards our little maritime city .
So, If it ainʼt broke, donʼt fix it.
Robert Archer is a retired airline pilot who lives in Gig Harbor.
This story was originally published February 3, 2021 at 5:30 AM.