After months of waffling, I’ve finally decided I’m voting in favor of changing our City government to the council-manager form.
I’ve gone back and forth on this question because it wasn’t clear to me whether the City’s problems are structural or simply the result of two terms with a divisive mayor, abetted by eight years of ineffectual Councils.
If we vote to adopt the council-manager form of government, we probably won’t see any big changes right away. After the election is certified, Mayor Darlene Kordonowy will become the eighth member of the City Council (if she chooses) until her term expires at the end of 2009. The often contentious 4-3 split on Council will widen to 5-3, because the current Council majority has been supporting Kordonowy’s policies all along. City administrator Mark Dombroski will, in all likelihood, keep his job. Citizens will still distrust City government, and we’ll continue to see the symptoms of that distrust: political controversies, large numbers of public records requests, and litigation between islanders and their government.
But the council-manager form of government could bring real change by next year. On January 1, 2010, the Council will return to seven members, and will appoint a mayor from among their number, whose duties will be mostly ceremonial. The terms of current Councilors Chris Snow, Kjell Stoknes and Debbie Vancil expire at the end of 2009, so there could be as many as three new people on the 2010 Council. The terms of the rest of the Council expire at the end of 2011.
That means that in a couple of years, we could have an entirely reconstituted Council and maybe, if the Council so decides, a new City manager. The Council will finally have to take responsibility for its budget and policy decisions because there won’t be anyone else to blame. The City manager will work for them.
On the other hand, if we don’t change our form of government, we’ll have more of what we’ve already had: another batch of Council members, and a strong mayor calling the shots. That mayor could even be Darlene Kordonowy, if she’s successful in the third-term bid she’s strongly hinted she’ll make.
Opponents of the change of government say we simply need better people in the positions we have. It’s true that the integrity and skill of the people in city government will be important regardless of its structure.
But where is this small island going to get “better people” to run for these low-pay, low-prestige public offices? What alchemy will a no-change vote work, to prevent the election of the same kinds of people we’ve always had: our friends and neighbors who, in spite of their civic-mindedness, may not have the skills to run an increasingly complex city government?
Civic-mindedness might have been a good enough qualification for the small town we were when we first incorporated. But now, we face tough questions about the appropriate size of our government, the sustainability of our land use policies, pressures to preserve our quality of life while maintaining infrastructure and public safety, all on a greatly reduced City budget. We need an experienced executive at the City’s helm who is equally skilled in management and political leadership. It’s hard to find both qualities in one citizen mayor.
Under the current system, the mayor has almost total administrative control, with the power to hire and fire all City staff, appoint members of citizen oversight bodies like the Planning Commission, and prepare, with staff, the City’s budgets, including the financial projections on which they’re based. As the authors of the textbook Managing Urban America observe about the strong mayor form of government: “Because of [the mayor's] commanding legal position, the mayor becomes the dominant force in city government.” That’s a lot of control for a citizen executive, regardless of who it is.
By contrast, a City manager is a professional who is hired by and reports to the City Council. The fact that he or she reports to the Council is a crucial difference in the council-manager form of government. Under the current system, no matter how talented and experienced a city administrator is, the mayor has final authority over his/her decisions. The administrator receives performance reviews and compensation solely from the mayor.
As a result, the administrator will always work to achieve the mayor’s goals, even when they might be different than policies set by the City Council. The tension between policy-setting, which is the function of the Council, and enacting those policies, the function of the mayor and her administration, has been a key source of conflict between the two branches of government during Mayor Kordonowy’s two terms as mayor. As the Council and mayor have sparred, citizens have lost trust that City government is operating openly, efficiently and in the best interests of the island as a whole.
If community surveys of the past few years have shown anything, it’s that islanders want City Hall to focus on the priorities of the whole community--water quality, non-motorized transportation, preserving the island’s natural beauty, providing services for islanders in need—not simply on the desires of the few who have the ear of a strong mayor.
A change of government is not a panacea. We need a complete renewal of the way business is done at City Hall. Every elected official and staff member should be trained and consistently reminded that the government exists to serve the people of Bainbridge Island–all of them, not just the monied and influential few. City records, its basis for decisions, and the genuine motivations behind project, laws, and policies should be available (preferably on the City website) for all to see. It will take a long time to adopt best practices throughout City government from finance, to engineering, to land use, to energy efficiency.
But a change of government is a good start. Let’s take a layer of politics out of our government and put its management into the hands of a professional, who answers to the Council. And to all of us.
For an impartial description and information about the two forms, take a look at the articles by the Municipal Research Services Center of Washington, here.
Althea-
You have put into words the position of many of us. The disappointment for all you captured also, that being if the form changes we get more of the same for a period of time. Darlene for sure in this writers opinion is skemeing and devisive and has been primarily responsible to the confrontational positions at City Hall and basically with the previous and current Councils.
So I too will do what I can to help move the vote for change and help assure as best I can the replacement of Kjell and Snow who really have decided to follow the Mayor’s example of ” To hell with the taxpaying voters ” we have our own agenda.
I can’t say the same for Ms. Vancil as she has shown over and over again to be a good listener, and a good supporter of what the majority supports. Sure she has positions often different than some but is truly willing to listen, discuss, and understand the ideas, thoughts, and positions of the other side before making up her mind. OH, what a refreshing approach compared to that of the four who so often, as has been stated on the blog in tthe past, to be under the Mayor’s spell.
Again Althea thanks for the effort to state so well what many of us know are our thoughts and position.
On yet another point, Althea. I for one would appreciate seeing any more facts about the moving of monies from a specified useage bond issue to the useages the Mayor and the four Councilors have decided the monies should go. I tend to agree that this is not right and frankly if against the law would like to see them prosecuted. This should be explored as this would possibly relieve us of even year end for changes to the Council.
Notebook, Notebook
On the wall,
Who’s the Fairest
Of them all…
Who put the lower case spell on my first name?
KITSAP SUN EDITORIAL — OPPOSES CHANGE-IN-GOVERNMENT MOVE
Notebook — the suspense was just incredible about your decision on a vote for the government modification. Can’t say I was surprised.
Risking the wrath of the relevance crowd (oh, but this group is not from Our Island) — here’s what our regional paper said about the vote. You can also watch Messrs. Harrision and Vogt pod cast before the Sun’s editorial board.
kitsapsun.com 4/26/09
OUR VIEW | Fix Bainbridge Government Without Total Overhaul
Alongside a capital facilities bond for Bainbridge Island schools this May will be a somewhat rare ballot measure. It’s a proposal to change the island’s current form of government, in which a mayor is elected as the executive branch and city council as legislative, to what is known as a council-manager system.
Council-manager employs a city manager, who carries out the city’s business at the council’s pleasure. In the mayor-council system, staff are accountable to an elected mayor, who employs a city administrator (for approximately what a manager would cost, incidentally), and the council provides a check and balance by authorizing spending and forming policy.
But distrust and dysfunction have become characteristic at Bainbridge Island’s city hall recently, and city manager advocates say moving away from a mayoral branch will open up the government process and heal some of those rifts.
In our view the current situation is at the heart a personality conflict among elected officials and, at times, interest groups on the island. Conflicts are exacerbated now by a falling economy and incredibly unstable city budget. But relationship problems aren’t enough to justify a complete overhaul of government. A similar notion was explored in Bremerton in 2000 when residents were unhappy with a mayor. But the initiative was defeated, a new mayor and some council members were elected, and that push tempered as the city gained direction.
City manager proponents, who have established the Web site http://www.VOTEcm09.com, cite a number of cities in our state that now employ a city manager, including Kirkland, Lynnwood, Mercer Island or Mountlake Terrace. If those can be considered comparable cities to Bainbridge, hiring a city manager may be a trend to follow.
However, stats can’t be the only driver toward this decision. We feel that the island is a unique community, which Bainbridge seems to pride itself upon, and one that needs executive leadership from its own populace. The island clearly has smart, involved residents that want to be part of their community’s future, and now is particularly the time for suitable candidates to step forward. There isn’t need to bring in outside talent to run the city like a business in such a politically engaged climate, nor is that the silver bullet toward solving what has become a protracted argument about the island’s future.
The timing to look for change by using the existing process is also opportune, with Mayor Darlene Kordonowy and three city council members at the end of their terms this year. If there needs to be change toward cooperation, as many in the community believe, make it happen at the polls then.
That’s all to say the burden of proof for a major shift in government isn’t met simply because of personality squabbles between the council and mayor, or a feeling that residents and council members are being sidestepped in the political process. City Hall’s “constant war and turmoil” — as pro-manager advocate Dennis Vogt described it to the Sun editorial board — isn’t solely a byproduct of the city’s governing structure. To say so is to presume the worst in those elected officials, and, even if correct in some cases, it’s short-sighted to assume leaders can’t be brought in on a platform of change.
That’s how our system, as imperfect as it may feel at times, is set up to work. We feel, with proper leadership, that’s the course to continue on.
E.W. Scripps Co.
© 2007 Kitsap Sun
I’m still planning on voting for the change in government and with the other sides fervent support from SCM, if history is any judge,change is in.
Kipsap Sun is irrelevant – so who cares what they think. They don’t have to live with the BAD Gov’t. we have and a Mayor who is completely incompetent!
I have also been wavering as to how to vote on this issue. There are three votes coming out of my house and we all three have the same concerns. I have listened and read almost ad nauseum about the pros & cons. Do I really want to give an already dysfunctional group of council members complete control over the city? Don’t special interest groups already push agendas through both the mayor’s office and through council members’ votes? Seems like whomever screams & protests the loudest gets… Am I willing to gamble that the next mayor is a “uniter”? I thought our city administrator already was a professional or experienced executive, yes? Perhaps without the mayor, Mr. Dombroski will be better able to make non-political decisions. Then again, he would report directly to a political body.
Althea is correct in that the way things get done at city hall (and the council chambers) needs to be changed for the better. Getting rid of a mayor will remove an extra layer of politics. I am just not totally convinced that having seven very political folks being in charge is the right thing to do. A bonus to changing the FOG is that at long last, the council would only have itself to blame when things go wrong. Of course, we would then exchange what we have now to having individual council members pointing fingers at each other and blaming the council “majority”.
Decisions, decisions…
Hunter’s point about the council no longer being able to point the finger at the mayor is a good one. There are a number of other realities that council will also have to face. Namely, once they make a decision they need to follow through, put it behind them, and move on to the next point of business. Too often they are willing to revisit issues after a vote has been passed simply because a vocal minority starts raising a ruckus. A C/M form will force the council to focus on real priorities.
The manager will need to be very firm with council about where their roles end and his/hers begin. Look no further than the BI Park District for a strong management style. Terry Lande has made it very clear to the board that their job is to set policy and his job is to implement it. It’s a style that gets things done in an orderly way although public process is minimized. I expect there to be significantly less public process under a C/M form. Done right, less process can be better than the overload of process with no results we see at COBI now.
IMO Council Manager form will not be a silver bullet. Because of it’s large size and it’s engaged, diverse, and somewhat volatile citizenry this Island is an incredibly difficult place to govern no matter the form, be it mayor/council or manager/council.
Council/ Manager will bring change but at a much slower pace than a new mayor with a good vision, the ability to work with council on setting goals, and guts of steel. I agree with Bob Scales that the city needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. That will not happen quickly, if it happens at all, with a Council Manager form.
Highly unlikely but I’d like to see Bob elected as Mayor for one term with a transition to C/M after 4 years.
John Grinter
Althea,
There’s a lot to admire and agree with in your latest post. Like most of the people I talk with about Island politics, I’m leaning in the same direction.
I think that a few things toward the end of your post deserve close consideration. You trace our problems to the mayor’s office, and to “the desires of the few who have the ear of a strong mayor.” This is a common and somewhat clichéd complaint about mayors world-wide: cronyism, decisions made behind closed doors, money talking, the “silverbacks” and old friends pulling strings. But council members can show just as much partiality to special interests and kitchen cabinet members. And I don’t think our current mayor’s performance can be explained in terms of susceptibility to “the desires of the few”: what I see is a proud, stubborn, fiercely defensive individual, isolated from both the people and the old circle of insiders.
Another thing: you refer to “the priorities of the whole community,” but the things you mention, important as they are, do not come close to completing the list of things that our local government must manage, with policies and administrative actions. Things come up every week that must be dealt with, urgently or through a long and tedious process, whether or not they are “priorities” as defined by a broad-gauge community survey.
How coherent and agreeable, on any subject, is “the whole community,” all of the people? I hold no brief for “the monied and influential few”; I want to suggest that both terms in your dichotomy are all too conventional. They are inadequate terms for describing the shifting and contentious interest groups that any form of government here will attempt to serve – inevitably, I think, with limited success.
In closing, Althea, I’d like you to imagine yourself a member of the Council in 2010, with a thoroughly professional manager in charge of implementing the Council’s will. You like and respect this person; s/he has brought order and transparency into the City’s daily operations. But some decisions have been unpopular; impolitic things have been said, or at least have been reported, chewed up and spit out, by bloggers; factions are developing on the Council. You have to make a choice: either act on what the people are saying, or defend the manager’s performance. What would you do?
I think some of the comments on here assume that contention and lack of unity are a given or base condition of our island. But this may be confusing the symptoms with the cause. I would argue that our current system heightens contention, because the council lacks power and cannot get straight answers from the staff.
I go back to the CH2M contention that our citizenry are “too involved”, which I have rarely if ever heard about before for a given place. Many places have the problem of apathy. We should be so lucky to have involved people! No, I think the real problem is structural, that we’re not tapping and using the abilities of the people that we put in place, and that the structure sets people against one another, along with some encouragement from the Mayor. Remember, she’s the common element among four councils that didn’t work.
If a system obviously hasn’t been working for so long, do you hold onto it hoping that the right people will come along? Do you hold onto a system where you need to have the right people each and every mayoral election? That seems like it’s putting a lot of hope in something that hasn’t taken place often here.
John Quitslund: Both.
Jon,
It’s interesting that you consider criticism of old-style politics-as-usual to be “conventional.” I grant you that people have complained, probably since the days of kings, that those in power stack the deck to protect their turf. It’s no less true simply because it’s an age-old lament.
As you well know, across the country people are no longer satisfied to leave important decisions about their communities to politicians, who in many cases, are the least likely to make fair, efficient and rational decisions. The recently released torture memos provide a horrific example of what happens when officials are left to follow their own agendas.
The difficulties at City Hall are in large part caused, not by ill-mannered citizens but by COBI’s own folly—projects that never get done, poor financial planning, a penchant for secrecy and reluctance to admit unpleasant or controversial truths. Of course there are citizens who go overboard in their criticism or are completely misinformed. That doesn’t invalidate the hard work of other citizens who offer opinions and ideas based on their expertise, experience and personal involvement with the topic.
Your final question to me suggests that you think activists at City Hall are uninformed and boorish rabble at the gates. I completely disagree. I have experienced just such a situation as a trustee on a public board. On a particularly controversial issue, citizens packed meeting after meeting, both sides angry and often disrespectful. Initially, I was more sympathetic to one side than the other. But I was amazed that the side I disagreed with made some important points–and the side I originally favored was not listening to the dissent. In the end, management and trustees learned a great deal from both sides of the controversy, and we crafted a compromise that satisfied all but the most extreme folks.
Had we been defensive, secretive about our intent, and disdainful of citizen input, we would have missed an opportunity to learn more about the issues, and we would have failed to represent a broad spectrum of beliefs and needs.
Yes, City government has much more work to do, and more controversy to deal with than the example I gave. Constant citizen feedback certainly becomes a drain on energy and resources. But navigating political storms and providing true leadership is half the job. If there ever was a time when governments could only undertake their administrative duties and ignore the people side of governing, those days are long gone.
Notebook: Thoughtful response to Jon Q’s analysis except for your wading into the fever swamp of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). Notebook added: “The recently released torture memos provide a horrific example of what happens when officials are left to follow their own agendas.”
Since apparently wide-ranging issues are relevant to the Notebook, let’s get the record straight on “horrific example” of the interrogation memos.
From today’s WSF: ” Misconceptions About the Interrogation Memos ~~Their goal was to allow the CIA and military to stay within the parameters of a murky area of the law.
By WILLIAM M. MCSWAIN (ecxerpt)
President Barack Obama has reinvigorated the critics of George W. Bush’s antiterror policies by opening the door to prosecuting or sanctioning those who crafted interrogation policy in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. These critics — including the president — are laboring under numerous misconceptions. Many of them have no experience with or understanding of military or CIA interrogation, the purpose of which is to gain actionable intelligence to safeguard our country. The recently released memos by lawyers in the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel were written to assist interrogators in that critical mission. The memos cannot be fairly evaluated without that mission in mind. ”
The full link is: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124078817411057411.html
Althea-
You opened up pandora’s box by getting into a subject which you obviously know little about. Were you aware that most all of us who have flown combat sorties had to go thru right here in the U.S. special survival training that included many of the techniques now being called torture. Survival school was designed to teach pilot who potentially could be shot down and captured how to resist the type of interogation techniques that were often used by our enemy. These experiences lasted over a number of days and were a part of a simulated POW camp. Combat pilots have then been thru many of the actual experiences those of you who have been able to enjoy the freedoms we provided yet sit back and criticize those who are trying to insure your safety with less then life threatening techniques to gain info.
I could go on but am disgusted with those who have enjoyed all the freedoms but piss and moan about that which they know little about!
Do you really think that if the techniques did not work they would be using them? Those who say you don’t get accurate info are flat wrong! And what we have been told were the techniques utilized, once again all pilots in the USAF have endured in training!
Judging from Althea Paulson’s and Rod Stevens’ most recent posts, I failed to make myself clear. Both of them, and others on this site and elsewhere, have offered valid criticism of our status quo. And I certainly don’t believe criticism by citizens, and agitation for change, should be held responsible for the shape we’re in financially.
Was I defending the mayor, or anyone else in city hall, against unfair attacks? I didn’t think so. I was only asking for more rigorous and fact-based criticism. Althea and Rod are very good at that, but some of what I read from them, and from others, strikes me as simplistic and therefore non-constructive. We rightly object to “conventional” thinking and behavior when we see it in City Hall. Most of Althea’s initial post was fresh and first-rate, and I said so; I only had trouble with some sentiments at the end.
One more attempt at clarifying what I think about the fractiousness of our population and the difficulty of determining what will be accepted as “the greatest good for the greatest number” (that old Utilitarian ideal, which I hope still has some value): I’m not troubled by the fact that we disagree, among ourselves and with our elected representatives. I’m troubled, sometimes, by the way we regard others as adversaries, without trying to see them clearly and pay close attention to what’s being said — just because we have pre-conceived notions about who is saying it.
Poof!
The “fractiousness” is not a characteristic of our population but of our politics. People here are generally nice and
self-effacing. Nor do you find that people on committees have a hard time getting along. There are essentially two places where people show they are upset: 1) on the dais, when council members are in disagreement over whether to go ahead with things like the bond, largely because they feel that government is not playing by the rules in how it uses this money, and 2) at the microphone, when everyday citizens are expressing their frustration at the only time when they have an opportunity to publicly express themselves, the two-minute comment period at the beginning of public meetings. Does it not strike you as odd that week after week, month after month, the dominant tone of these comments is negative? Do you think that our population is grumpy, or is there a larger problem here that might be causing such behavior?
This boils down to a mayor and a compliant group of council members who do not want to listen or share control. The clearest evidence of this is the experience and resignations of citizens who have served on the various commissions, who found that the Administration ignored or even changed their recommendations on such matters as non-motorized transportation or affordable housing. You do not get “fractiousness” when people feel like they are sharing in the power. This desire to share power is at the heart of the movement to change the form of government. People don’t just wake up some morning, decide that they want to participate in government, go downtown and be told no, and then show up at the next council meeting to talk about this. Their frustration builds and builds and builds, and over the course of time it erupts into the many comments you hear at the mic. Ours is a relatively self-effacing culture. It takes a lot to get people to speak out like they are now.
This damn FOG is running havoc with my mayoral campaign. At least it reads well on my CV, “Last Mayoral Candidate, Banbridge Island, WA – Pre FOG Change”.
Sigh. In 50 years, no one will be proofreading my comments on a blog.
Ezra told me he ordered an extra pair of absentee ballots, ‘just in case’.
Ezzie said, “This is the people’s chance to be heard as wise decision makers. The poor financial decisions at City Hall must stop as soon as possible for our welfare and our children’s welfare.”
I told him I didn’t know. We’ll have to make several wise decisions in a row…
Ciao from Navels, Penny and Ezzie
On the subject of torture, this is for you brave warriors who think torture is defending anything.
None of you claim to know first hand what it’s like to be tortured. I do. I was a victim of severe child abuse for many years. My abuse included mock executions (dad holding a gun to my head in the middle of the night, laughing), near drownings (dad holding me under water in the kid pool), beatings. sexual humiliation. Things that are unprintable on a public blog, and not really much different than things at Abu Graib and Gitmo except I was a kid.
I survived it all, though I still have many scars, the kind you can’t see. But I’d rather go through it a thousand times than do to someone else even once what was done to me.
There is always the possibility of healing for the victims of torture. But for the torturer, the judgment echoes throughout eternity. I cannot see a path of self-forgiveness for a torturer. I have another family member who admits to committing brutal acts against civilians in Viet Nam. He has never drawn a happy breath in all of the years since he’s been home, and there isn’t a drug in the world that can erase his shame. How much worse is the shame of an entire nation that approved torture as a policy.
For those of us with personal knowledge, torture can never be a political opinion.
The point that was made by the pilot that seemed to be missed is that which people are calling torture, sleep deprivation, water boarding etc that the ACLU et al are making into an event were part of the training that pilots went thru in preparation for combat and I for one would not call it torture. Ask the guys who spent time at the Hanoi Hilton what torture is vs. that which keeps appearing in the news and labeled by liberals as torture.
Who spoke of child abuse where did that come from in the context of what was being discussed-the comment was originally made as a result of something Althea decided she would slip into her blog about her position in the upcoming election and it had no place or real relavance. Horrif examples-are they horrific or is this really torture? Well just remember all of you arm chair quarterbacks, your defenders, all combat pilots, go through survival school and experience that which you liberals are calling torture so they can defend America against the barbarians who would kill you if they had half a chance.
At best this is conflation of two different issues:interrogation and child abuse. Your opinion is your opinion And I do have standing to speak on the subject.
I am very much looking forward to the outcome of the May 19th vote on change of government. I have talked to many people who are voting for, and a few who are against the change. The system we have now does not seem to be working ,so, in my opinion , it’s time to shake things up with some real change. Most seem to just want the vote to come and go so we can get on with the business of trying to straighten out the Islands business . I vote yes.
Bainbridge government aside, any thoughts on Bank of America’s attempt to get Billions more bailout money while spending millions of bailout dollars to fight the credit card holders Bill of Rights?