From Mobile, Alabama, to Las Vegas, Nevada, from Key West, Florida, to Portland, Orgeon, appointments to city committees occur mainly through the legislative body, whether they are called city alders, council members, or commissioners. In Madison, however, citizens and alders are appointed by the mayor and approved by the Common Council. Alders do not have the authority to appoint residents or their fellow alders to city committees. The only exception is the Common Council Organizational Committee, whose membership is appointed by the presiding Common Council president. Is it time we re-evaluate this pratice? I suggest yes!
In recent times some Madison residents have questioned whether the Council is too accommodating to the executive branch. Equally some alders have experienced the frustration of not being (re) appointed to committees and may have concluded that if a mayor "likes" or agrees with the political views of alders and residents, they get their choice appointments. However, until we change this practice, a mayor has the right to make such decisions while the Council only has the right to deny confirmation. Consequently, critizing an incumbent mayor of merely exercising his/her authority makes little sense.
By the way, when I talk about the mayor and Council leadership, I am referring to them as positions rather than to the particular individuals currently holding office. For purpose of disclosure, I serve on over ten committees and have done well under the current system. I have no particular ax to grind. But I do believe the current appointment process needs fixing.
Let's start with alder appointments to city committees (I'll share my thoughts on citizen appointments in a future blog). Neither governors nor presidents appoint members of the legislative branch to committees because the prevailing logic of separation of power is an important aspect to preserving a vibrant democracy. Why should this be any different at the local level where the proximity between elected officials and their constituents is the closest? Alders are elected to the Council to work on policies, which takes primarily place in our many city committees.
Alder assignments on committees are, therefore, a critical piece of implementing the will of the people. Why would a legislative body not want to be involved in determining which of their members serve on what committees? Instead we have a peculiar set-up where alders are elected and then "told" by a mayor on which committee they will serve. Granted, we are asked for our preferences, and I'm confident each mayor is mindful of these preferences and the respective professional experiences of the alders. But that's really neither here nor there. The point is that the paternalistic nature of committee assignments interfere with the purpose of a legislative body. It creates too much dependency on the political agenda of a mayor and reduces the necessary checks and balances needed to keep a democracy alive.
Furthermore, having to depend on a mayor for committee appointments can create an insiduous culture of tacit accommodation. A mayor who does not have the authority to appoint alders to committees would have to work much harder at persuading the legislative body of the merits of his/her intentions and actions. He or she could not use alder appointments as a carrot or stick to garner votes. When that happens now, we tend to criticize mayors for behavior when, in fact, the organizational condition creates and dictates such behavior. Therefore, changing the way alder appointments happen will have a long-lasting, positive effect on the future politics of Madison. In my opinion, a Council that has the authority to appoint its own members to city committees will assert itself more and exercise such responsibility with more accountability.
So who should make alder appointments to city committees? There is a myriad of models to choose from across the country. In our City it could be Council leadership, a special Council committeee comprised of alders, or the current Common Council Organizational Committee. Each option has its own strengths and issues. None of them will eliminate the political nature or (perceived) preferential treatment of alder appointments to commitees. That's not the intent for this suggested change and would be quite naive to expect. What is intended is to restore and/or create a stronger balance of power between the legislative and executive branch of our local government. This should provide more genuine opportunities for constructive disagreement between a mayor and a Council.
Let's keep a mayor's mitts off of appointing alders to committees and make such appointments truly a legislative affair.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Is it time for a City Administrator?
How would you feel getting another "city leader" without an election? At no additional cost? Sounds too good to be true? Yet this is exactly the scenario that many municipalities across the world enjoy. It requires having a City Administrator who takes on the day-to-day management tasks of running the city government while allowing the elected mayor to focus on strategy, vision, and the political process.
Specifically, a City Administrator would implement policy and deliver services with a commitment to effectiveness and accountability to elected officials, be responsible for managing resources efficiently, and perform according to the professional and ethical standards defined by the field of public administration. City administrators are more inclined to balance details and strategy, and short and and long-term interests. They are grounded in policy analysis and implementation, law and regulation, and in the accumulated knowledge and experience of their public service career.
In some ways the retiring City Engineer and Director of Public Works, Larry Nelson, or the former Director of Planning & Community & Economic Development, George Austin, fulfilled the role of the City Administrator informally by virtue of skill, ability, authority, and longevity. One could even claim they fulfilled the informal role of the City Administrator because the size of our city government has such a latent need.
A City Admistrator is sometimes mistakenly compared to a City Manager. The latter belongs to a governance model where there is no mayor. Instead a City Manager is hired by and reports to the elected City Council. In some cases the President of the Council may serve as a "Mayor." There are too many variations to list here. The key point is that I am discussing the Administrator model that includes an elected mayor. Besides, Madison unsuccessfully tried the City Manager model between 1947 and 1951.
For those who want to critique the addition of a City Administrator as another level of bureaucracy, you may want to read up on the history of how this function came into existence. In the early part of the 20th Century it was the the progressive movement in Wisconsin that promoted city managers or administrators as a means to break up the political machines (and parties) that dominated City Hall to the detriment of the citizens. The intent was to expand the civil service code of conduct within local governments by promoting transparent standards of fairness and due process, and reducing the favoritism and arbitrary treatment of citizens.
As our City faces a number of major reorganizations in the near future, we have the opportunity of rethinking our internal governance model. We could create an Office of Management and Organization, headed by a City Administrator, for example, that would fulfill many of the functions currently performed by mayoral aides. While I am not suggesting that the aides aren't doing their job well or that a Mayor shouldn't have any appointed aides, newly elected mayors are more inclined to use these aide positions as a reward to campaign workers who may not have the grounding in public policy and analysis and/or do their learning on the job. The prerequiste for a City Administrator would be to bring the required knowledge, skills, and ability to the job.
As mayors enter their second terms and previous campaign workers move on, it seems the second round of aides often are selected based on their professional experience and competence. Perhaps second-term mayors have learned that governance is more than just being politically savvy. City administrators provide the best of both worlds. They offer professional continuity while being accountable to elected officials beyond the election cycles of local politics.
When should such a transition occur, how shall it be paid for, and what could it look like? I suggest when a new Mayor is elected, reduce the current number of aides by two or three and use the salary savings to pay for the incoming City Administrator and the newly established office. We could also look into consolidating other City functions and positons into the new office. One scenario could include integrating the Office of Organizational Development & Training into the City Administrator's office.
Such an office would, among other tasks, begin to re-emphasize training and development across the City to encourage excellent customer service, re-ignite the continuous improvement efforts needed during good and especially bad budget times, integrate the current environmental sustainability efforts (The Natural Step model) across all departments (since TNS and the continuous improvement model share many of the same methods and tools), and offer elected officials, including the City Council, more data and support.
The complexities of governance during a tighter budget era requires a rethinking of how the City of Madison should be governed. So why not get more for the the buck? Let's free up the Mayor from daily governance issues and allow him or her advocate for the electoral mandate. Let's hire a City Administrator to implement the mandate with consistency, expertise, professionalism, and an eye towards continuous improvement.
On a side note, my interest in excellence in civil service comes from my own experience as a former civil servant at the Federal level, my Masters in Public Administration, being a member of the American Society for Public Administration, having used the City of Madison as a case study for my Ph.D. dissertation research in the mid nineties, being an active board member in the League of Wisconsin Municipalities, and owning a private organization development firm in Madison.
More importantly, my interest in this topic is based on my present work as an elected alder who perceives that we need to improve our local government structure and operations to effectively manage our human and capital resources during tougher economic times.
Specifically, a City Administrator would implement policy and deliver services with a commitment to effectiveness and accountability to elected officials, be responsible for managing resources efficiently, and perform according to the professional and ethical standards defined by the field of public administration. City administrators are more inclined to balance details and strategy, and short and and long-term interests. They are grounded in policy analysis and implementation, law and regulation, and in the accumulated knowledge and experience of their public service career.
In some ways the retiring City Engineer and Director of Public Works, Larry Nelson, or the former Director of Planning & Community & Economic Development, George Austin, fulfilled the role of the City Administrator informally by virtue of skill, ability, authority, and longevity. One could even claim they fulfilled the informal role of the City Administrator because the size of our city government has such a latent need.
A City Admistrator is sometimes mistakenly compared to a City Manager. The latter belongs to a governance model where there is no mayor. Instead a City Manager is hired by and reports to the elected City Council. In some cases the President of the Council may serve as a "Mayor." There are too many variations to list here. The key point is that I am discussing the Administrator model that includes an elected mayor. Besides, Madison unsuccessfully tried the City Manager model between 1947 and 1951.
For those who want to critique the addition of a City Administrator as another level of bureaucracy, you may want to read up on the history of how this function came into existence. In the early part of the 20th Century it was the the progressive movement in Wisconsin that promoted city managers or administrators as a means to break up the political machines (and parties) that dominated City Hall to the detriment of the citizens. The intent was to expand the civil service code of conduct within local governments by promoting transparent standards of fairness and due process, and reducing the favoritism and arbitrary treatment of citizens.
As our City faces a number of major reorganizations in the near future, we have the opportunity of rethinking our internal governance model. We could create an Office of Management and Organization, headed by a City Administrator, for example, that would fulfill many of the functions currently performed by mayoral aides. While I am not suggesting that the aides aren't doing their job well or that a Mayor shouldn't have any appointed aides, newly elected mayors are more inclined to use these aide positions as a reward to campaign workers who may not have the grounding in public policy and analysis and/or do their learning on the job. The prerequiste for a City Administrator would be to bring the required knowledge, skills, and ability to the job.
As mayors enter their second terms and previous campaign workers move on, it seems the second round of aides often are selected based on their professional experience and competence. Perhaps second-term mayors have learned that governance is more than just being politically savvy. City administrators provide the best of both worlds. They offer professional continuity while being accountable to elected officials beyond the election cycles of local politics.
When should such a transition occur, how shall it be paid for, and what could it look like? I suggest when a new Mayor is elected, reduce the current number of aides by two or three and use the salary savings to pay for the incoming City Administrator and the newly established office. We could also look into consolidating other City functions and positons into the new office. One scenario could include integrating the Office of Organizational Development & Training into the City Administrator's office.
Such an office would, among other tasks, begin to re-emphasize training and development across the City to encourage excellent customer service, re-ignite the continuous improvement efforts needed during good and especially bad budget times, integrate the current environmental sustainability efforts (The Natural Step model) across all departments (since TNS and the continuous improvement model share many of the same methods and tools), and offer elected officials, including the City Council, more data and support.
The complexities of governance during a tighter budget era requires a rethinking of how the City of Madison should be governed. So why not get more for the the buck? Let's free up the Mayor from daily governance issues and allow him or her advocate for the electoral mandate. Let's hire a City Administrator to implement the mandate with consistency, expertise, professionalism, and an eye towards continuous improvement.
On a side note, my interest in excellence in civil service comes from my own experience as a former civil servant at the Federal level, my Masters in Public Administration, being a member of the American Society for Public Administration, having used the City of Madison as a case study for my Ph.D. dissertation research in the mid nineties, being an active board member in the League of Wisconsin Municipalities, and owning a private organization development firm in Madison.
More importantly, my interest in this topic is based on my present work as an elected alder who perceives that we need to improve our local government structure and operations to effectively manage our human and capital resources during tougher economic times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
