Lafayette should elect a Mayor directly - true?
How about this analysis from the National Civic League:
"In many cities, particularly the larger ones, it is believed that [direct election] increases the potential for mayoral leadership by giving the mayor a city-wide popular support base. This is particularly important when all or most of the council members are elected from districts. A disadvantage of this method is the possibility that the mayor will be at variance with the council majority on some important issues.
"...in many other cities it is felt that local policy leadership can best function through a cohesive team of council members which chooses its leaders as mayor. In those cities, Alternative II, election of the mayor by and from the council, is used and the possibility of conflict between the mayor and the council majority is avoided. However, cities using this method should avoid particular practices which diminish the prospect of effective leadership."
What do citizens gain from direct Mayoral election? In a small town like Lafayette my concern is you don't necessaritly get just a "strong" Mayor, you get someone so grateful and enthused by their election they steer Council on their own path with less consensus. We don't need one person to feel they are any more the voice for the town than another on the Council. They are all elected and are all on the same level; from within that group comes a majority-chosen leader who, as far as I can tell, is pretty ceremonial in that role.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I'm a proponent of a directly elected mayor primarily because I believe strong leadership can come from that position.
As I've stated before strong leadership can come from a strong city administrator as well, but the elected officials have to check their egos at the door to let that happen. (Not likely as ego is involved in the decision to run in the first place.)
I could be pursuaded to change my view if someone could give me examples of strong leadership coming from a group (i.e. council, board of trustees, congress, etc.).
My opinion is mostly based on business experiences which repeatedly show management by committee to be ineffective as opposed to a single strong leader with a clear vision.
Extending to the extreme the theory that a group can provide leadership, why not just put everything to a direct vote of the people?
Well, the issue is not going to get anywhere in Lafayette this year, as the ballot needs to be finalized at the next council meeting and the City Attorney has recieved no direction to draft this up, nor could it be placed on the ballot by initiative in the time available (none). I'm a broken record for all the times I've said that the Charter Amendment Review Committee could be looking at issues like this with a little more thinking in advance of the election season.
As far as the question of what this would do to improve leadership in a city, it seems that everyone has their own opinion on why it would work or why it wouldn't work. Again, if all we're doing is changing the manner by which the mayor is selected, as opposed to changing some fundamental responsibilities and duties in the Charter, I'm on the skeptical side.
The NCL quote that Dan provides assumes that the mayor has distinct power and also states that the advantage seen in larger cities (that do have a mayor with exectuive authority) tends to counterbalance the provincialism of a ward system by which councilors are elected. Really, all the comparisons to Denver and other cities with strong mayors has almost no application in Lafayette.
What I see in Louisville, as a more apt comparison, is a council that makes decisions without the mayor necessarily being the one, single leader or playing a critical role in checking the power of the council.
An independent leader who is not beholden to fellow council members for his position is preferable.
But doesn't every member of the council already have the opportunity to be a leader?
I'm still wondering whether the issue is simply how to elect the mayor, or is it creating some new clout for the mayor, to accomplish some greater purpose. If it is the latter, do our neighboring communities that do have direct election of a mayor provide that model? Someone who watches the details of Erie and Louisville politics would be able to answer that better than me.
I've been thinking about this one. As I read and think about issue after issue, it becomes clear that Lafayette has had really poor leadership.
An elected mayor at least comes in with a mandate from the voters and the voters would have chosen the person they trust to communicate issues to them. This on its own creates some clout.
Certainly a charter change would also be in order, but I don't think it has to be done first.
Besides a nice ugly, knock down drag out, bitter fight for mayor is bound to get folks interested.
Would Lafayette have better leadership under this system? Who knows? If it's not broke, don't fix it, but if it IS broke for gosh sake don't just stand there - do something.
I know voters won’t elect Lafayette's next mayor, but I hope they elect the next.
Post a Comment