HomeMy WebLinkAboutSummary PublicInputReGovtStruct
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT ON GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE,
MAYORAL VOTE & MAYORAL VETO.
Preface:
These three issues, particularly the government
structure, required considerable explanation as to the nature of
the issue, and why/how it was being considered by the committee.
For each group, approximately one third to one half of the
available time was spent addressing these points along with
answering specific questions. As a consequence, insufficient time
was available to obtain any kind of a real consensus, although
general feelings on some points were possible. With so much time
devoted to facilitating each group, not enough attention was paid
to the quality control of the recorded comments.
City Government Structure
?
The majority of the participants were in favor of establishing
a city manager with authority to hire and dismiss department
heads. Present structure suitable for smaller (than Ashland)
cities.
?
Approximately half of the participants favored the mayor
supervising a city manager but not the department heads-
"difficult for department heads to have two bosses". City
staff need clean lines of authority at all levels.
?
Two participants favored the present structure - one was
adamant "I've lived here for 40 years and I like it the way it
is-don't change it!"
?
Approximately half of the participants favored having a city
manager manage the city operations along the lines of a
corporate business, particularly as the city continues to
grow.
?
Maybe one-fourth of the participants viewed the city as a
government function which should be managed differently from a
corporate model - none could articulate how the government was
different except that the mayor (chief executive)is an elected
official, not appointed.
?
Several participants favored the concept of a mayor/manager
team with shared power.
?
Several participants felt that the mayor, as a part-time
official, couldn't effectively supervise the city officials
and department heads.
?
A majority of the participants felt that the mayor should be
readily accessible to the citizens.
?
Most participants felt that the duties/responsibilities of
both the mayor and city administrator/manager should be
delineated in the charter.
?
Many participants felt that the mayor should be in a position
to hire and dismiss the city administrator/manager.
Comment: Considerably more time is required to educate the voters
on this complex issue so that there is an understanding
of the present government structure and possible new
alternatives. Some form of in-depth discussion group(s)
is needed.
Mayoral Vote
?
Most participants asked the question "why doesn't the mayor
vote with the council?"
?
Several participants felt that the citizens should rely on the
council for decisions on city matters, and that a mayoral vote
was not necessary, except in the case of tie decisions.
?
A few participants felt that the mayor should vote with the
council, but, in that case, wouldn't have veto authority.
Mayoral Veto
?
Several participants posed the question "what are the pro's
and con's of a mayoral veto?"
?
A few of the participants felt that a veto power by the mayor
was not necessary - provides too much power for the mayor.
Comment: Because so much time was spent on the issue of city
government structure, little (in some cases, none) time
was available to address the vote and veto issues.
Again, more time and voter education is needed to obtain
valid citizen views on these two issues.
DRM