The subject of a county-manager system has been a troublesome one for the Charter Review Commission since it initially was presented by public testimony in 2005. The commission then in place failed to take positive action on it before leaving
The subject of a county-manager system has been a troublesome one for the Charter Review Commission since it initially was presented by public testimony in 2005. The commission then in place failed to take positive action on it before leaving office in 2006, but its proposal for convening a successor commission to be able to continue to consider, among other matters, the system, was adopted by the voters. In April 2008 a manager proposal was given to the commission by one of its members, Walter Briant. However, it was ignored by the remainder of the commission, which never considered it at any meeting.
In February 2009, under pressure to reopen the subject, the commission established a three-person Governance Committee to reexamine the concept of a manager system, but it did not complete appointments to it until May. After two members of the committee resigned from the commission, the surviving member issued in November 2009 a report which purportedly offered her views and which contained as the first of three recommendations the continued study of the manager concept. In December the commission heard public testimony on a manager system but engaged in no discussion about it and has not thereafter included it on the commission agenda.
At the March 2010 meeting citizen activist Glenn Mickens offered a communication expressing his views as to the evasion by the commission of its responsibilities to address the issue. A number of other citizens offered related comments.
The attitude by the commission to this communication is interesting. Until the county attorney deputy in attendance ruled that allowance of public testimony was mandatory on all agenda items, the chair sought to deny all public commentary on the communication. The statements made by citizens were received by the commission in a strained silence. No request was made by any commission member for any elaboration or explanation of the statements, and the points made in the testimony were not discussed by the commission members. The impasse was disturbingly apparent.
There is a valid impediment to the commission’s examination of the manager subject. It would cause major changes in the manner in which our government operates, and potentially has many variations. The commission cannot put a concept on the ballot for our voters. It needs to have a specific proposal.
While county-manager systems are in place in communities in 45 of the 50 states in our country, they exist in a number of different forms. In each case the cornerstone is the designation of a manager or administrator having responsibility for the operations of the community. However, peripheral to that central appointment there are additional issues that require attention.
Recognizing the legitimate requirement of the commission to have a specific proposal, an ad hoc group of citizens has examined the questions involved and has submitted for consideration by the commission at its April meeting a proposal structured on adapting the existing provisions of our County Charter and changing them only to the extent essential to implement a manager concept.
It is to be understood that all of the assumptions made by the ad hoc group in their work product should be open to examination by the commission and comments from others in the public sector.
Let us outline the proposal that will be offered. It would change the charter in four respects.
First, an appointed manager will be given all of the administrative powers now held by the mayor other than the power to veto ordinances. While this empowerment is simple conceptually it will cause changes to be made in about 60 instances in the charter.
Second, the council will be empowered to employ the manager, to set his (her) compensation, and if found necessary to terminate such employment. Such power will include appointment of successor managers.
Third, the educational and experience qualifications of the manager will require that he (she) have a master’s degree from a recognized university with a concentration in public affairs and at least two years experience in a managerial or administrative position in a local government. A lower educational requirement with greater experience is also provided.
Fourth, the mayor will retain his (her) non-administrative functions including his ceremonial and representative duties and will become the chair and voting member of the County Council. Certain procedural changes will be included to coordinate this point.
It is to be noted that in such a proposal while the manager will become the county’s chief executive officer and responsible for county operations, the mayor will be the head of the council, the county’s sole elected body, as well as continuing to act on many of his (her) present duties.
The citizens committee offering the described proposal is hopeful it will be given timely and appropriate action by the commission.
Any proposal of this nature will have its supporters and its opponents. It is not the purpose of this column to offer pro and con arguments on whether a manager system is to be preferred over the current mayor-council system. That important debate can come later. Rather it is intended here to register what is believed to be the unassailable observation that the citizens of our county should be able to decide the form of government that they wish to have. It is clearly in the interests of the county and its people that the Charter Commission consider the proposal submitted, make any amendments or additions deemed necessary, and then submit it for the vote of the electorate.
The April meeting of the commission should be crucial to the potential of having a manager system on our island.
• Walter Lewis is a resident of Princeville and writes a biweekly column for The Garden Island.
