I put a poll on the right-hand sidebar, just because it’s Friday and I found a new widget on my blog.
Our city is in financial crisis. Some islanders think it’s time for a change of government, and have been working hard to put before the voters whether we should change from the current “strong mayor-Council” form” to a “City manager-Council ” form. Under the proposed form, the Council would have the authority to hire (and fire) a City manager, who would be the chief executive of the City. With the help of Rep. Christine Rolfes, a bill that would permit a May vote on the matter is making its way through the legislature.
So what do you think? Do we need a new form of government or just a new attitude? Would giving the Council more power make local government more professional or more polarized? I’ll leave the poll up for a week or so…it’s totally unscientific but you can’t beat the price. Feel free to use this post as an open thread to comment on the City’s challenges.
I do not support a change in the form of government. I think this movement was started because people weren’t happy with our current Mayor and perhaps thought this could have been a quicker way to get her out. That didn’t pan out, as now we may be voting on a new mayor and a change in form at the same time. But if I remember correctly, this movement started about a year ago and maybe the hope was that we would have been able to vote on it sooner. And I may have supported it had that been the case.
But now that some time has passed and I’ve thought about it more, my personal opinion is that the problem does not lie with the form, but with the mayor some of us elected, and four council members, some of which weren’t really elected (in my opinion).
To me, a change in form is more dangerous. Does it only take 4 votes to approve the manager? I see that we could be in the same position. What if the gang of four decide to hire the current mayor back as a manager? I think we just need a new mayor and some new council members.
The essential question is whether or not we, as voters, want to have a say in who our city’s Chief Executive is.
If we vote for the manager form, we are saying that we don’t want to have a say…that we wish to give up a core democratic right….that we don’t trust ourselves to choose our Chief Executive.
I wonder how many Islanders would answer the same way if the same question was posed for our federal government. Would Islanders leave the decision of choosing our next President to Congress?
Certainly this whole movement started because the Islanders started to realize that our Mayor was totally incapable. We would for sure be better off with the Manager who today is working for the Mayor reporting to the Council but the best of both Worlds would be to replace the Mayor. Detroit, MI did it, The Govenor is gone as of yesterday in Illinois, lets go for 3 and send the Mayor of BI packing.
So how do we do it? We need a leader, someone who can manage, lead, and most importantly listen to the citizens and act upon their desires.
I’ve changed my mind. It should be obvious that this council is a serious part of the problem so a vote to eliminate this mayor’s job won’t be the fix the petition signers hoped.
Civil action to force improved attention from the gang of four seems desirable. How many would turn out for a rally? Not enough I’d guess.
MMA and Ms. Curmudgeon have it right! The form of government is far less important than the calibre of those we elect. We almost always get the government that we deserve.
Getting the deck chairs properly arranged may be satisfying, but won’t solve the real problem.
A manager doesn’t want to be one vote away from being fired. If they are smart about job security, they’ll seek more consensus.
Yes, you can have good mayors, but look what one bad mayor has done. Does anyone believe our current form is working? How much more downside could there be to a change?
Our problem is Mayor K. She won reelection and the original election by wide margins. Citing her failures is no convincing indictment of the mayoral-form-of-government we have. It is magical thinking to conclude our council who were present through these awful times will suddenly change their character.
Give us a quality mayor and not a Machiavellian femme fatale.
Call to Recall: YouTube: Deceit Deception Recall Mayoral Bainbridge.
Voters have had years to watch our COBI Council in action on BITV broadcasts and any reasonable evaluation of putting them entirely in charge is crazy. BI needs checks and balances.
The Italians love a good femme fatale! We’ll take her, if you don’t want her. Does she have style? The Italians love style.
Ezra says it’s all a fun distraction while the City is going bankrupt. Ezra writes for the government. He has style.
Ezra says it’s not about the packaging, it’s about the nutrition inside. Petty potentates are a government writer’s dream.
Ezra says it’s a slippery slope, when you abolish your right to elect an accountable public servant to punish yourself for a poor choice – okay, for two stupid choices.
I love him! Ezra has style.
Ciao from Navels. Penny and Ezzie
The change of government form decision is a difficult one.
With a Council-Manager form of government could be as bad, or worse, than the existing situation because four City Council people could control who is city manager … and then essentially have virtual total control over city government. Just looking at the existing Council, that might be problematical, although the current 4-3 split is largely based (my opinion) on the Streetscape project. Three Council members are pro-Mayor and pro growth … Hilary is voting with them on Streetscape, but I don’t necessarily see her as overly pro-Mayor (OK … she did vote to reduce the parking in the core area, so ???)
On the other hand, the Council-Manager form would eliminate some City Council posturing to prepare a Council member for a run at mayor. I think a lot of the discord happening with the Council at this time is based on political posturing in the event the change in form of government is rejected. The potential mayor players should be obvious to those that have followed the too long continuing city drama.
The current mayor still has a lot of important civic people support, and she will still be a viable candidate should she again run for another term. Changing the form of government is a sure way to send her back to West Port Madison, but the form of government decision should not be based on a the leadership, or for some the lack there-of, of a single elected official.
So … looking forward to a vigorous debate with thoughtful insights … not just rants.
And just how accountable has the Mayor proven to be? You get a chance to vote her out of power every four years. You get a chance to change the city council every two years. If you don’t have faith in electing a good group of people, why do you have faith in electing a single good person? Seems like people are putting all their faith in having one person. I’d rather diversify the risk, and hope that even if the council isn’t getting along, at least there’s a responsible manager running day-to-day operations. That’s a lot more than we have now.
Most people don’t realize that not only does the Mayor hire and fire the staff, but she has exclusive control over the appointment of the various commissions. Just where do these checks and balances come in? People are putting a lot of faith in the power of one person, who has day to day control over a budget of tens of millions of dollars. For a salary of about $65,000, what are the odds that we’re going to get a qualified person? Perhaps if we scale this back to a caretaker government with very limited responsibilities, but otherwise let’s put a skilled person in charge. There is just the slightest chance that we might get more good people running for the council if we actually gave that august body some responsibility. Right now it’s a powerless body that has become a mouthpiece to the mayor. Yes, having the mayor on the council may not necessarily change the current dynamic, but robbed of her perks and staff control, perhaps a manager could at least be a counter weight.
P.S.
Canada doesn’t elect its prime minister, and that country seems to be in better shape than the U.S. I’m not convinced that the federal system of government is really the right model for an island of 22,000 people.
I don’t trust the current mayor or council, choice 3 gets my vote, throw all the bums out. A benevolent dictator is sounding better all the time, someone who gets things done. Our tone deaf leaders are myopic hand wringers incapable of making decisions. Now they are creating a new citizen committee to advise them on the state of the local economy . . . why bother? It follows that the well meaning volunteers will be ignored like all the other citizen committees and commissions. Will the County please take us back?
Our biggest problem is the number of really qualified people on this island that are willing to take this job. We are better to hire someone that has the city management experience to move us forward out of the mess we are in today.
A hired city manager knows they must deliver to perfection or they are at risk of being fired. Good ones have no fear to cut salaries, budgets, and staff when times get tough.
Robert,
What’s the difference between having one person bungle things versus four? It’s not necessarily that easy to vote a mayor out of office, especially an incumbent. It only take the defeat of one council member to swing the majority. Two of the four council seats held by people in the council majority are up for election this year. It only takes one of these to swing control.
Keep talking Rod, I’m on the fence again. But is there anyone other than Rod willing to speak in support the council-manager model?
Toss the Mayor and the deaf four OUT. A professional as a City Manager would be a major improvement. We now have a Mayor who has ZERO leadership abilities, NO management skills and her own agenda that does not match up with that of the majority of taxpayers and four Council people who are lackies and implement all the Mayor asks for and don’t know if they are on foot or horseback.
Lets toss them OUT!
On November 18th two main spokesmen emerged in city hall for the change of government.
Dennis Vogt, director of the Bainbridge Institute who collected signatures for the petition and identified himself as a retired land use attorney and an elite Harvard man with tassels on his shoes.
http://www.bainbridgeislandinstitute.org
Andy Maron, former city council person, and interim mayor. Mr. Maron, sporting a tie, was also instrumental in incorporating Bainbridge as a city back in 1990, and until recently supported the current Mayor.
http://m.kitsapsun.com/news/2008/nov/19/bi-to-lobby-for-spring-vote-on-mayor-manager/
These individuals, both offering to lend a hand to change state law to help with the proposed “change of government” on their home island of Bainbridge, making it a state legislative emergency. Donating their time to guild the way for our local state representative and other state elected officials to lobby hard in Olympia and send through a timely change of government in time for a May vote.
Why so keen on the change of government?
Andy Maron is a named one of “Washington’s Most Amazing Attorneys” and “Super Lawyer.”
http://www.superlawyers.com/washington/lawyer/Andrew-W-Maron/df0ebbf0-a216-4739-b959-ebb7561a8055.html
http://www.scblaw.com/people/andrew-maron
Practice areas: Construction Litigation (60%), Government/Cities/Municipalities (30%), Business Litigation (10%)
Industry Groups: Construction, Water And Sewer Districts
Andy Maron’s practice focuses on construction, commercial, real estate, and local government law. He has experience in all types of civil litigation: state and federal, local and regional, trial and appeal. In the construction industry, he represents owners, contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers in public and private projects. Mr. Maron also has a long-standing practice representing special-purpose districts, and is regularly retained by local governments as special counsel for litigation matters.
Where are most of Bainbridge Island tax dollars funneled, does anyone else see a connection? Two main $ projects are the sewer upgrade and downtown Winslow.
Is it possible that these individuals have jumped ship from Darlene to the new manager form of government venue so that they can continue to benefit seamlessly from the continued push for the development of Bainbridge and the use of tax dollars for a few city insiders (Winslow Tomorrow)? To continue an agenda delayed by Darlene’s lack of popularity to maintain control of the city purse strings under what appears to be a more publicly popular venue called “change of government”?
Does this change of government in essence equate to just a rehabilitated form of power for a few city insiders? Just “Google” Andy Maron, read about how interfaced he is with political power.
How fine a line is there between personal business and profit and support for a change of government? A new venue for power and success through control of our local city and state government.
Who are the main property owners in this town? Follow the dollar. Bainbridge suffers from more than just a dysfunctional city government. Is anyone else concerned?
A spin on Gary Larson wisdom: Car of idiots, Ferry of fools…. Island of morons.
Bainbridge Mafia: I have no idea what undisclosed motivations anyone has, including you. I posted your comment because it’s not outright insulting and it does raise a legitimate issue about our behind-the-scenes power structures.
But it makes me wince because I think it’s blatantly unfair. In a small town, all of us are a handshake or two away from a possible conflict of interest. (As for my own interest in this, I’ve met both Mssrs Vogt and Maron but do not know either of them well. And I haven’t made up my mind about change of government).
People who get involved in civic causes often do it in multiple ways: holding office, serving on boards, promoting issues, providing professional services. They rarely have completely altruistic motives. They want to network, gain name recognition, or have the ego-satisfaction of being a player (in our case, a very small player!). Sometimes they’re just passionate about a cause. And sometimes they want to line their own pockets.
These are facts of life in politics. Knowing that–but without any hard evidence of wrongdoing or conflicts– doesn’t help us make good decisions on the issues.
The thing I find the most disturbing about your comment is it’s a classic smear technique. That tactic even has a name: “FUD”–fear, uncertainty and doubt. With innuendo and unsupported speculation, it discredits people without having any hard facts. It also distracts from the merits of the issue itself. Rather Karl Rovian, in my book. Here’s a Wikipedia link about it.
Ms. Paulson: So what’s wrong with Karl Rove now that we have Rahm Emmanuel as POTUS’s hard-ball Chief of Staff? It’s amazing you decry someone (Mafia) and engage in the same smear without documentation or is it that your set of assumed facts are gospel (or dogma). Perhaps BI Mafia could flesh out his points given something other than a blog shorthand to work with.
Let’s see some tolerance. Yes, it’s your blog but let’s see some consistency. After all it’s only Mafia’s opinion — whether right or wrong or whether you or I agree.
Roughly half the “cities” in Washington in our size class have Mayors. The problem is finding someone in a population of 22K to work full time for $60K who has the political and management skills necessary to succeed.
Mayor K does not have the management skills, but she apparently has had the political backing of a majority. It is highly unlikely that her supporters will vote to kick her out, but it’s worth a try. It’s also worth trying to break the current council majority. Say goodnight, Kjell.
Althea, that motives issue is interesting I think. What the Mayor did with regard to bonuses was probably done for laudable motives (I don’t think she is a bad person), but the net result was to take the money that was saved by having the employees take 10 days unpaid vacation and give it to their bosses (not right in my mind).
As you point out everyone has motives for everything. Mother Theresa had motives for the selfless acts of charity she did. I don’t think that necessarily makes her actions wrong. On the other hand I knew a marine that was a cracker jack soldier and great gunner on the heavy caliber machine gun; only thing was that he really enjoyed the way it made people splatter when he hit them. I guess the net result is what separates the two, one helped people and one killed people.
I don’t know whether a change in the structure of government will necessarily help or hinder us. What actions the people in power do under either form will determine the net result?
PS. The name of that Marine gunner might have been Karl now that I think about it. I always wondered what happened to him after he got processed out under section 8.
Ok, I’m out of here, I don’t want to be reminded that haters like Tripp, Olsen, Peddy and the arsonist exist.
What it is…. An Island resident named Andy Maron is promoting a change of government for Bainbridge from Mayor/Council to Manager/Council. Mr. Maron is using his clout in multiple ways to promote this change of government, even creating a state legislative emergency. Other Washingtonians might consider this behavior on Bainbridge as entitled.
Mr. Maron previously promoted and was involved in the incorporation of Bainbridge Island as a city from Kitsap in 1990. Then he served on Bainbridge city council.
Mr. Maron was also the interim Mayor of Bainbridge. All factual political connections so far.
The previous promotion and eventual formation of Bainbridge as a city and the separation from Kitsap in retrospect has resulted in many negative outcomes for many property owners and residents of the Island.
Bainbridge is in financial trouble, Rod Stevens and Daniel Smith have outlined the deficit spending of millions and the resulting bonding, which continues to grow like a cancer.
The formation of the City of Bainbridge has allowed for the deferment of tax dollars for pet projects for city insiders at the expense of basic infrastructure maintenance and up keep, lowering the overall quality of life on the Island.
Mr. Maron could be observed on BITV in late 2008 promoting the funding of a new police and court facility despite the public outcry for fiscal responsibility as revenues waned.
Many of our property rights have been dissolved and tweaked in back room style politics to promote the over development of Bainbridge at the expense of the general population. To the point where our water supply is showing signs of overuse. A recent article in the Bainbridge Islander documents significant drawdown in city wells, sea water intrusion, obvious decline in water quality, and many residents are forced to deal with dry wells during the summer months.
The city currently is faced with a basic lack of trust of our current government for obvious reasons, all well outlined in many blogs on this site and others. Just review all the continued buzz about the costly funding for the numerous versions of Winslow Tomorrow over the years, often referred to as a Disney like project.
So the population of Bainbridge should go along with Mr. Maron’s current promotion of a change of government so the state of affairs on the Island can decline further? Look where his civic involvement has landed the Island so far. Why should we blindly continue to follow his lead, because he is socially networked? That is not a sound rationale for any decision making process.
Historically the small town politics is what has provided for the chronic misuse of authority to date on the Island, which is what was referenced as a defense for Mr. Maron. That somehow limited social interaction with an individual is paramount to historic facts, is at the heart of the discussion. Consistently Islanders consider social acquaintances, friendships and gossip over facts and existing law.
The fact that some Islanders are a hand shake away from a conflict of interest has led to the current financial quagmire and an overall mistrust of the local city government. This is a more appropriate Rovian connection and mirrors the political sway of the previous administration and what some US citizens feel led to the overall decline of this country.
There is no fear mongering only reasonable question and concerns. Many who have had to shake hands with Andy Maron have concerns about his involvement in a future mutation of Bainbridge based on his past. Not everyone considers his involvement a positive influence.
At first the change of government seemed like an excellent and reasonable way to rid Bainbridge of a incompetent Mayor, but now many fear the concept has been hijacked for the same self interests and self aggrandizing that has led to the very reason for contemplation a change for Bainbridge in the first place. Might it be easier to force the current Mayor to resign? Take on the real problem up front.
Hope you are good to your word Ms Curmudgeon. You wrote Ms. Curmudgeon
“Ok, I’m out of here. . . ” So much better for the neighborhood. Ah, reminders of the great Buzz days.
Bravissimo, BM!! You have style! Ezra says you must have written for the government at some time…
It took two biscotti with my cappuccino to digest your post. A degraded quality of life is reflected by poorer municipal services in all areas, including public safety and public health.
Ezra says public health is more than the incidence of cancer morbidity and mortality, because you are drinking off shore sea water in your wells.
Roz Ipsum is raving for your autograph BM (Ezra suggests you use a middle initial for PR purposes)! She’s from the ancient Italian regime and thinks you have style!
Ms. Curmudgeon: Ezzie takes his hat off to you. He says, “Love is like a flower, it holds a lot of rain”. I say you have to kiss a lot of a** to find a decent frog.
George, the difference between one of your gunnies and Mother Theresa is that the latter leaves fewer pieces around after passing than the former. Mother Theresa never served on the Board of Helpline House as boot camp for mayor, either. Ask Roz.
Ezzie and I are right behind CSOB when we march on City Hall.
Ciao from Navels. Penny and Ezzie
This is inside baseball to me. I have young kids and I don’t have time to figure out all the cliques and ins and outs of how things get done here. So I have to decide on how one form or the other is going to minimize the misuse of authority. Right now it seems like putting all the power in one person’s hands with a pushover Council majority has resulted in this mess we’re in. If we had a professional manager, who had to answer to the whole Council, the power is more spread out and harder to abuse. I’m going to vote yes on change of government.
Hats off to Karen……..she’s got it………..
Yes, I would rather be pickpocketed by a gang of thieves, than politely robbed by one.
I’ve taken this unscientific poll and want to share a few thoughts as a reluctant, but active, City Hall watcher since 2002 (when our Mayor arrived on the scene). It’s taken many years to identify the “real” problems with our City.
In 2002, I believed our efforts for change should focus on work with the excellent Council line-up that shared our goals. We were wrong—their power was very limited. By 2004, we’d decided to focus on fixing our dysfunctional local laws. That hasn’t resolved the real problems either. Why? Follow the money. It’s the Mayor’s Administration, not the Council, that is empowered to spend our taxpayer dollars, mostly out of public (& Council) view. For example while the Council’s approved year-end budget allocated of $600-$800,000 per year for road repairs, those repairs never happened. The examples are many.
Could the fiscal freefall that the City’s been in since 2002 have been avoided under a Council/City Manager Form of Government (FOG)? Probably yes, and the reason is that a professional could not keep their job for long if they failed to provide credible accountings to the City Council (and the public) during the year, refused to work with the Council from the outset to create a budget, or was unable to account for why essential projects fell off the work plan while others were added in.
How might things be different with a Council-City Manager FOG?
1. Transparency and accountability would be increased 4-fold since all Council activity is subject to the Open Meetings Act. The Mayor’s activities are not. Thus, perhaps as much as 80% of city business is currently off-record.
2. We wouldn’t have to wait 4 years for the Mayor’s term to expire since 3-4 Council members would be up for election every 2 years (City Council members would take turns serving as Mayor).
3. The Council would hire (and could fire) a professional with proven business and management skills to run the City. [This model has worked well for our Parks & School Districts.]
4. The Council/Manager system has been tried. It works so well that it is the most popular government reform movement across the U.S. for cities under 100,000 and over 10,000.
5. This is not about personalities. It is about the possibility of setting up a streamlined, more cost-effective Council/City Manager system that cuts through the heavy bureaucracy and potential power conflict that exists in the Mayor-Council system.
We have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Nothing to lose, and everything to gain… sounds like a slogan for municipal bankruptcy…
“Elections cannot inconvenience me. They ratify my will or I neuter them.”
I can’t remember who said that….was it Rod Stevens or George Hearst?