But isn't it better to take the politics out of city government as much as possible? This is something that sounds good but what does it really mean? The person who runs our city doesn't have to please the public? If he is doing a barely adequate job, he doesn't have to worry about being replaced by someone who will campaign to do a better job? Party politics should stay out of city government - that I agree with. The mayor should be a non-partisan position - same as the commissioners are currently.
But isn't the city manager system better because we have a professional running
our city who doesn't have to campaign constantly to keep his job? -
Sounds good, but why is having to please the public constantly a bad thing? Where does the "buck stop" with our
current system? Not with the city manager. He will tell you that he is just
"hired help". We pay him rather well but since he is just an employee
of the commission the buck doesn't stop with him. The buck stops with our
poorly-paid, part-time commissioners. So the reality is our less than minimum wage
paid commissioners are the ones with the most authority. The commissioners are
not paid to run the daily operations of our city; they are supposed to oversee
the manager and other top city employees and see that they are doing a good job.
So when a business wants something done in our community, he goes to the city
manager. The city manager says - I'd like to help you but I'll have to consult
with the city commission and their next public meeting is in two weeks... A
mayor has more authority than a city manager. As the elected top official of the
city, the buck would stop with him. Of course, he still has to work with the
commission but an elected official makes a better leader.