Here's a description of the four basic forms of government that cities in the United States use. It comes from the National League of Cities : www.nlc.org
Mayor-Council
Characteristics include:
- Separation of powers between directly elected mayor and city council
- Mayor has executive powers while council has legislative powers
- Mayor is directly elected to office, often full-time and paid
Council-manager
Characteristics include:
- City council oversees the general administration, makes policy, sets budget
- Council hires a city manager to carry out day-to-day administrative operations
- Often the mayor is chosen from among the council on a rotating basis
Commission
Characteristics include:
- Voters elect a individual commissioners to a small governing board
- Each commissioner is responsible for one specific aspect, such as fire, police, public works, health, finance
- One commissioner is designated as chairman or mayor, who presides over meetings
- The commission has both a legislative and executive functions
Representative Town Meeting
Characteristics include:
- All citizens can attend and participate in town meeting discussion
- Individuals are chosen by the general electorate to represent them in voting
- Each town meeting must be announced with a warrant that provides the date, time, and location of the meeting and specifies the items to be discussed
- The selectmen are responsible for implementing policy
Of these, what form do you think the city has now? Should we be making some change?
51 comments:
http://ohmygov.blogspot.com/
Little late to start asking us what we think about it.
Should have asked this one a year ago.
Stop interrupting and arguing with citizens at the podium and with the floor if you truly want a conversation.
"All censorships exist to prevent any one from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently the first condition of progress is the removal of censorships."
-- George Bernard Shaw
Note for the Mayor & Council:
Consensus is the community resolution when opposing parties set aside their differences and agree on a statement that is agreeable to all, even if only barely.
Consensus is a group discussion where everyone's opinions are heard and understood, and a solution is created that respects those opinions. Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority. Consensus results in the best solution that the group can achieve at the time. Remember, the root of "consensus" is "consent". This means that even if parties disagree, there is still overall consent to move forward in order to settle the issue.
I like the idea of a commission with one commissioner having an individual area of responsiblity. I think this provides some oversight but also delineates the area of policy from management more specifically than now.
The "Public Process"
The members of the Charter Review Committee were hand picked by Bernard and appointed by the mayor. A standing committee that had existed for years was dissolved to insure no disagreement or actual discussion took place.
Citizens who were interested in participating in the process as part of the committee were intentionally refused a seat, while the committee repeatedly failed to have the quorum necessary to conduct business.
The committee was chaired by Bernard's lapdog.
The level of hostility leveled at alternative viewpoints during the meeting Tuesday by the Mayor and the Committee Chair clearly shows their interest in public input from those who care about the rights of the electorate.
The Result
A proposed Charter that accomplishes 2 things;
1. Restricting the citizens ability to address actions they disagree with via referendum by specifically delineating legislative and administrative actions.
(from LOC model charter)"This model suggests that charters specifically recognize council resolutions as the proper form for the exercise of its administrative authority. Use of this form for non-legislative decisions makes clear which
council actions are subject to referendum. Oregon Constitution, Article IV, section 1(5) gives voters initiative and
referendum powers over “municipal legislation”, but not municipal administration.."
2. Guarantees additional authorities to the City Administrator, regardless of the wishes of the City Council by whom he is employed.
(from proposed charter)"The office of City Administrator is established as the administrative head of city government."
(from current ordinance)(The City Administrator) is subject, however, to the complete control of the Mayor and city Council, who shall continue to exercise and have the primary responsibility for the affairs of City government and City public works and utilities
Who wins and who loses
If this proposed charter was in place prior to 2008 you would, at the very least, be paying the fire surcharge. The council would have adopted it via resolution and it would have been immune to challenge by the citizens.
You lose.
Bernard will certainly exercise his new "administrative head of city government" authority and institute fees and charges as he sees fit, without approval from your elected council. I'm sure he will then have the funds available to commission some REALLY expensive art work.
You lose.
You lose.
Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it.
Milton Friedman
According to the city attorney, there is a difference between a "City Administrator" and a "City Manager". In fact the difference is big enough that qualified applicants will apply for a "manager" position but not an "administrator" position. In my book, that's a pretty big difference, Bus driver vs Air Line pilot is the first analogy that comes to mind.(they both have the same "form", mass transit).
To me at least, that makes the "Form of Government" issue a red herring. Democracy is a "Form of Government" as is a Democratic Republic, how many people really know the difference?
What matters to me is the function of government, ie where the power/authority is assigned.
In my opinion, lazy, shortsighted, or self serving citizens/council members assign power to bureaucrats so they can escape the responsibility for making decisions, or avoid making decisions on issues that create potential conflicts of interest (purchases of art work or support for a do-nothing Ordinance Enforcement position, for examples) to a bureaucrat.
U elected 'em
U deserve 'em
Inept/Corrupt meets Ignorant/Corrupt
"I have the authority to sign loan contracts."
"I have the authority to hire and fire."
"It's a transfer payment."
"Rules?"
"You'll buy art work if I support your agenda?"
"You want me to vote that that ordinance doesn't exist?"
"It's ambiguous"
The intelligent,informed council/mayor have the ignorant/uninformed citizens best interests in mind. (lol)
on and on and on.........
July 7, 2010 7:31 PM
"I like the idea of a commission with one commissioner having an individual area of responsibility."
That is usually a practice of the "Mayor Council" form of government practiced by big cities like Portland. The mayor has exclusive executive authority and appoints council members to be in charge of a specific department, that council member has broad authority usually including hiring and firing the department head. I can't imagine Brad,Bernard or Lance being in favor of this so it's really a moot point.(Okay, it really doesn't matter what Brad or Lance think).
"Stupid is as stupid does"
Forest Gump
The "Players"
Bernard, initiates/promotes changes that increase his authority.
Brad, subjugates his agenda authority to Bernard in exchange for favors from Bernard.
Lance, votes for Bernard's agenda in exchange for committee appointments and face time on CH23 to support his run for mayor.
Randy and Kari Jo just nod Yes, Yes , Yes
Separation of powers between directly elected mayor and city council
Problem with this is:
You separated the powers in the proposed charter. Chapter II, section 6.
Council exercises administrative power, legislative power and quasi-judicial powers.
Council can exercise administrative power by resolution, legislative power by ordinance and quasi-judicial power by order.
Chapter III, section, 7 says the council consists of a mayor and 6 councilors.
Section 8, specifies the mayors duties.
So if the mayor is part of the legislative branch. No powers were exercised by the council or mayor, to be in control of the administrative branch, which would mean the City Manager, had full control of the administrative branch.
Mayor has executive powers while council has legislative powers.
Problem, Chapter III, section 8, again the mayor has no administrative powers exercised in the Charter.
Mayor is directly elected to office, often full-time and paid.
Does that mean that the Mayor will also be the City Manager?
Has the Budget Committee fulfilled the legal process required to pay the mayor a salary and how much?
So if we replace the City Manager with the Mayor does that mean the Secretary of the Treasury or the City Recorder is the head of the Administrative branch as no powers were granted to anyone to have full power of the administrative department.
FUBAR!!!
Cody
.
Does anyone realize what is truly wrong with this Charter as well as our previous Charter?
If you watched the Charter public hearing it was more than apparent.
It was all about power.
In the US all government power belongs to whom?
The Sovereign people!!!
So what right do the Sovereign people have in this Charter?
NADA one!
People whom vote for this deserve to have a government whom violates their rights as all this does is give them power over you. All yes voters will do is forfeit personal powers blood was spilled to grant we the people these powers.
Cody
Election coming up - get rid of all of the present & elect people who care about the law and the citizens. Quit playing favoritism and play by the rules. This is not high school, but we have the worst clique I have ever seen. Spending money we don't have, transferring funds between accounts, whining that there isn't enough money for the "large projects". There is nothing wrong with being a bedroom community and living in an honest, safe town. Quit with the pipe dreams already and get your head out of your ##%&@@.
"CM Pruit said, “I don’t really think that we should be doing this right now. I think that we should be doing this in
public display. CM Masters stated this is a public meeting. CM Pruit said, “We closed the public meeting and went
into Executive Session.” CM Pruit stated, “I think this is inappropriate and I strongly protest that we are doing
this now.” Mayor Lorang said he would take her comment as an abstention."
I CAN'T BE THE ONLY ONE WHO SEES THAT AS BULLYING AND PROMOTING AN AGENDA? CM MASTERS IS UNAWARE THAT THEY ARE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION? AND CM PRUIT'S PROTEST IS THREATENED TO BE TAKEN AS AN ABSTENTION. WTF? AND THE MAYOR SAYS THAT IS A CONSENSUS? THIS IS A VOTE!
HOW CAN HE POSSIBLY BE THIS IGNORANT OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE?
The comments you quoted happened after the council returned to regular session. Maybe you should read the whole page before jumping to a conclusion that supports your self-righteous outrage
Anonymous
I do not understand how you concluded that the council returned to regular session.
My questions to you would be.
1. Was there a published agenda?
2. Was all business on the agenda of the regular council meeting acted and decided on?
3. Did council have closing comments?
4. Although Council postponed the workshop did Council open and close it?
5. Did Council open the executive session?
6. Was the public excused from the Council Chambers?
7. Was the mayor’s departing statement to the general public “thanks guys”?
8. Would knowledge of these facts lead the public to believe that the regular meet of the council was over?
9. Did the mayor or Council ever state that the council would be reopening the meeting?
10. Was the camera operator who televises regular meetings of the Council stated as present in the minutes of this so called return to regular session?
11. Was this so called return to regular session televised?
The answers are yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, no, no, no.
What this was is Council using the shield of an Executive Session to have secret meetings out of the public’s view and knowledge. Pure, plain and as simple as that.
What part of the people’s constitutional right to redress government as well as the States policy being all public business is to be in the open for citizens to give input do you not understand?
I am sorry but I do not get your point.
Maybe you do not know all the facts or maybe you are one whom is involved in this illegal act trying to use this blog in an attempt to justify your actions?
As far as the minutes I have the meeting recorded and it tells a different story as to what led up to this meeting.
I am sorry I have to put it this way but it is as it is!
Cody
Did I forget to mention our own Charter provision.
CHAPTER IV
COUNCIL
Section 16. PROCEEDINGS TO BE PUBLIC. No action by the Council shall have legal effect unless the motion for the action and the vote by which it is disposed of take place at proceedings open to the public.
Cody
MAKE THAT RIGHTEOUS OUTRAGE!
Thanks Cody
Get a grip guys. The meeting doesn't automatically conclude after executive session. Any educated member of the public understands that point. What, was the city supposed to pay the camera operator to sit around and wait until the Council finished up. They didn't know how long they were going to be because they can't get along at all and don't communicate well with each other. So legal it was but smart it wasn't. There is legal and then there is the perception of fairness. I think what they did was unfair to interested members of the public and they should have all said "It's late, let's go home and take this up again next time" They also could have called a special meeting to continue the discussion later the same week.
Just my opinion, Cody, so don't go jumping all over me just because I expressed myself. You know, that is one reason people won't speak up because they feel like if they do they will just get attacked and not be able to simply converse.
Agreed Andy, people jump all over you, which might be why there are so many anonymous commentators here. Citizens are getting angry at Council meetings. People and politicians have to learn to listen. Yes, even if they disagree. Choosing to take the reasonable and perceptibly fair course (when it should be a knee-jerk reaction)just is not happening anymore. I for one, will be glad to see the end of Lorang's term with his abuse of Robert's Rules of Order, his obvious partisanship, hot temper and penchant for dismissing valid concerns and arguing with worried citizens who have the podium. But this "fine line" has been crossed too many times. There is no fairness lately, there is no true consensus and there have been several personal comments when the even-tempered approach of a facilitator was needed. He is unable to convince so he resorts to bullying. I expect my governmental representatives to be reasonable, calm, informed, educated, aware of the communities feelings (not just their wives.) I also expect them to discuss and vote while not tired, hungry or unable to go to the restroom or feeling like they need to explain every no vote like a third-grader who is accused of not playing well with others.
And yes, I do expect to pay for the camera person to stay. It is not too much to ask of her. Although running a meeting past 10:30 is unnecessary. Many of us in town do not take channel 23 (and it works only part-time anyway.)
Andy
I am sorry you interpreted that as an attack as it was not. It was just a statement of fact.
Just as the following, is not an attack, but a statement of fact, that I disagree with your statement that this meeting was legal.
The problem is if the City wanted to reconvene the meeting they should have informed the public before executive session. If you noticed during the meeting this issue came up. There was public outrage.That business was closed and a special meeting was called for. Which has taken place.
Now look at the outrage this has created.
My problem with this is that a legal question concerning an ordinance from a councilor to the City attorney during executive session turned into acting and deciding on City business behind closed doors after the public was dismissed from the public portion and this was done without public notice.
Now in order not to tip my hand with the City at this time you would be correct if the executive session discussion had not been about City business, but social as there would be no problem.
Where evidence showed only that quorum of public body gathered in private for social purposes and no evidence showed that any decisions or deliberations toward decisions occurred at those gatherings trial court did not err in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment on claims brought under this section and ORS 192.650. Harris v. Nordquist, 96 Or App 19, 771 P2d 637 (1989)
I would argue that the minutes of this meeting show these were not of social nature but deliberations and decisions.
Case law over the years has already determined what a violation is and what is not. This is a violation.
So for now I guess we can agree to disagree.
Cody
City council oversees the general administration, makes policy, sets budget
Council is elected to oversee administration, legislating policy and Budget Committee determines the budget. Refer to earlier answer Council has no administrative authority their powers are legislative and quasi-judical.
Council hires a city manager to carry out day-to-day administrative operations
Just leave it as an Administrator. City Administrator should be allowed restrictive duties concerning hiring and firing. If a job needs to be filled or a new employee is needed Administrator can come to Council with a request to hire and council approves or denies and the City Administrator should always have the power to suspend with or without pay and leave the liability issues up to the Council. They are the ones financially responsible after all if a mistake is made.
Often the mayor is chosen from among the council on a rotating basis.
People vote for one mayor not mayors who change on a rotating basis.
This would be a voting right violation.
Cody
Voters elect individual commissioners to a small governing board
Each commissioner is responsible for one specific aspect, such as fire, police, public works, health, finance
One commissioner is designated as chairman or mayor, who presides over meetings
The commission has both a legislative and executive functions
Let me get this right. You propose electing unqualified persons to be in charge of public works, fire, police, finance and the like throughout all departments of our City?
Now I might understand how this came up if we were say for instance a town of 100,000 plus so that qualified people in each of these trades could run for the office but we are not.
We do not have the talent pool in this town to pull something like this off.
Then are you willing to pay these commissioners?
It will be a full time job after all.
Mayor they cannot be as we only elect one under the law.
Chairman is the CEO as you refer to it in my mind.
Just do it right and departmentalize all departments of the City.
Go further and make divisions like Department of public works division of water, division of sewer.
IF you were to realize it for instance the electrical department officer named in the charter is the person who sets rates. Opps I forgot that you overlooked that law. So in reality we are not even a legal municipal electrical, water or sewer company.
I think it would be wise to read the law about all our departments and what is truly required before proposing such nonsense.
Another fine example of why government should never write the charter.
I have already stated what I think of this.
Cody
Your Future?
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0716-bell-residents-20100716,0,4326515.story?track=rss
Think your charter isn't important?
Think protecting "administrative actions" from referendum can't be used to take advantage of the citizens?
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bell-salary-20100715,0,7352605.story
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0716-bell-residents-20100716,0,4326515.story?track=rss
Gosh, I wonder if there is any connection between these council members receiving $100k per year and the CA's salary?
The topic of compensation for council members has already been brought up by B.S.
Our $30,000 full-time paramedic, to paramedic/fire chief, to fire chief, to EMS department head, to HRC 911 grant writing superstar is only up what, 100%+ in a few years?(with another $10k set aside for "overtime"). He's certainly unapol
I doubt there is anything to worry about though, OUR council has "all the facts".
Dear Lance:
Regarding your comment about the new charter in the HR News. Bag it.
(Rushed it through in less than 14 hours?)Anything worth doing is worth doing right. Bag it.
(Saved money on the lawyer?) You get what you pay for. Bag it.
(Found another way to divide our community?) McCoy property, fire station, casino/resort, in-lieu-of-franchise fees?) One would postulate you don't want us to stay a small, self-run community. Just bag it. Bag it.
*Sung to the tune of Michael Jackson's "Beat It."
Thursday, Aug 19th, is the last day to file to run for council and mayor. Who is it going to be??!!
Gary Munkhoff, Sandra Kelley, Larry Cramblett and Don Haight have all been active citizens during the past year. Oh, and Katelin Stuart, too. I'm sure they would be happy to run and support their community while offering their various insights.
Be careful what you wish for...
Okay, Hood River News had in their Saturday newspaper editorial:
Mayor -
Gail Lewis, George Fischer, Brad Lorang and Kevin Burton.
Councilor - Tom Cramblett, Don Haight, Kerry Osbourn, Jeff Helfrich, Katelin Stuart and Eva Zerfing.
Just one question - who the heck is Kevin Burton?
The lesser known twin of Richard Burton? LOL
Lance, regarding the last sentence of your post:
"Should we be making some change? I think we will come November. What are you going to do without your buddies?
OOh, Lancie is jealous and wants to go to Washington, DC. too. He doesn't want them to leave him out. He is beginning to get that there is an agenda that leaves him out.
Would that be the hidden agenda of the Haighters that want to dismantle the city and turn Cascade Locks into Dodson circa 1950? Leave me out too.
So maybe it was contagious on Monday. Lars Larson had this meltdown on his show today
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_sX5tLDnfM
Whats up with this blog?
Same thing as the last 3 months.
Did you lose interest.
Put this thing to sleep for good.
So it just proves that we need a forum, not a mommy
Why is the City sending four people to WA, D.C.????? I remember hearing on council the budget limited $2000 for expenses. Will it be sack lunches, taking turns sleeping on the floor, riding the bus or the metro, etc. Seems like sending two or three would be as effective.
Because they are scared and because they know it's their last chance.
Seems they forgot what they have been telling us for the last year - it's not in our hands anymore.
You slimy, compromising piece of excrement. You just sold us out for 3 months of CA salary in return for one month of quasi-work from that Texas chicken.
I say we recall you.
I agree 100% but is he worth the effort? He's effectively neutered and cant do any more damage.
So you think he'll just be content to be a placeholder?
No, he'll need to play teacher knows best or junior mayor grimaces at the right times or interfering but well meaning council member...
He knows no other way
Or screw the rest of the new Council over by inviting BS to address the Port. Arrogant slime!
Lance - can you make a relevant posting or just delete this blog.
So, ArrogLance, still stupid enough to allow comment posting, eh?
You Dumb f*ck, why don't you stop obstructing the new "voted-in" Council that is obviously 180 degrees from your old one and resign your fat ass? Maybe you can run for the Port like your old bedfellows are going to do. Can you say ineffectual?
HA HA, now no one wants to even sit next to you.
Post a Comment