Charter: Impact on City staff
Today, we continue our comparison of the City’s current charter to the proposed charter on which City electors will vote in a November 24 referendum. Under the new charter, the roles and accountabilities of senior City staff members would be markedly different.
What we have now
Under the current charter, only two City employees are appointed by and directly accountable to the elected City Council: the City Manager and the City Attorney. All other employees, including department heads, are accountable only to the City Manager. Section 20 of the current charter expressly prohibits the City Council from directing or requesting the appointment, removal, or discipline of City employees:
Section 20. Interference by Council; penalty for violation.
Neither the Council nor any of its committees or members shall direct or request the appointment of any person to or his removal from office by the city manager or any of his subordinates, or in any manner take part in the appointment or removal of officers and employees in the administrative service of the city … any violation of the provisions of this section by a member of the council shall be a misdemeanor, conviction of which shall immediately forfeit the office of the member so convicted.
Appointment and removal of senior City staffers under the current charter:
- City Manager: Appointed and removed by majority vote of the City Council
- City Attorney: Appointed and removed by majority vote of the City Council
- City Clerk: Appointed and removed by the City Manager
- Department heads: Appointed and removed by the City Manager
What the new charter proposes
The proposed charter would make department heads accountable to the executive mayor, much as Cabinet Secretaries are accountable to the President. Most appointments made by the mayor would require Council approval, much as the President’s appointments of Cabinet Secretaries require approval by the Senate. One exception is the “city administrator,” who would serve at the pleasure of the mayor.
Appointment and removal of senior City staffers under the proposed charter:
- City Administrator: Appointed and removed by the mayor; Council consent not required
- City Attorney: Appointed and removed by the mayor; Council consent required for both appointment and removal
- City Clerk: Appointed and removed by the mayor; Council consent required for both appointment and removal
- Department heads: Appointed and removed by the mayor; Council consent required for appointment but not for removal
Under the proposed charter, all City employees would be ultimately accountable to the elected executive mayor. Currently, City employees are accountable to their department heads and ultimately to the City Manager, all unelected.
Conclusion
One area in which these changes could benefit the public is the accountability of City employees to an elected official. Let’s say, for example, that a City police officer commits some act of misconduct, but is not discplined and is returned to duty. Under the current charter, despite any public outcry, our elected officials have no power to act. Under the proposed charter, the elected mayor could recognise the public pressure and act accordingly to ensure the officer is disciplined.
Of course, this could work to the public’s disadvantage, also. Take for example the completely unfounded anger which some local business leaders expressed at CRA Director Thad Cohen. Under the current system, the professional City Manager realised that the public pressure was unwarranted, and kept Thad Cohen in his position; however, an executive mayor in the same circumstances might have dismissed Mr. Cohen to appease powerful supporters.
So, again, it really boils down to the quality of those we would elect. A quality individual in the strong mayor’s seat could efficiently and responsively manage the City’s staff, while a bad pick could mismanage or mistreat the staff. This question comes down to whether City residents want their City employees to be responsible to an unelected, but professionally trained City Manager, or an elected mayor, who is himself (or herself) accountable at the ballot box.
Subscribe to our feed
Get updates via email
Follow us on Twitter
So the strong mayor could fire or discipline rank & file employees, not just the department directors? Whoa.
What a Guy:
Here’s the language from the proposed charter:
The mayor would be the chief executive officer of the City, just like the a CEO at a large corporation. Usually the CEO isn’t going to have to fire someone in the mailroom, for instance, but he can do it if for whatever reason he has to.
This is standard for mayor-council governments, and is how things work Jacksonville, St. Pete, Mobile, etc.
I believe you’re referring above to Officer Ard and implying he should be punished (“disciplined”) before he is or is not charged with a crime. Usually you’re considered to be innocent in this country until being found not-guilty or guilty. Just because something “feels good” doesn’t make it right.
The downside to getting rid of an apolitical City Manager is cronyism. Look at Charleston. Mayor Joe Riley refused to fire or even discipline his long-time buddy the Fire Chief who let that city’s Fire Department fall apart, resulting in the death of nine fire fighters. The Fire Chief was allowed to retire a year later. Riley probably didn’t do anything because it would have been an open admission of his failure as city leader. Then you have Riley’s long-time family friend he hired to be the city’s Property Manager. That buddy managed to embezzle $700,000 over ten years right under Riley’s nose.
The Mayor-Council form of government is a high risk/high gain proposition. Everyone is or should ultimately be accountable in our present form of government to the Mayor and Council, if the government worked as it should. If a Department Head is failing and the City Manager does nothing a Council majority can remove the City Manager. However, such power is only useful if you’re willing to use it. As best I can tell, no on on the council has significant organizational leadership or management experience and it shows.
C.J.: I am. Calm down, though. I believe in innocence until proven guilty as much as the next guy. Nobody’s saying we should lock him up and throw away the key. However, it is just beyond inappropriate for him to have a badge and be back at work while he is under a criminal investigation which could conceivably return a murder indictment. A majority of Council members realise this, based on conversations I have had, but don’t have the power to act under the current charter.
An executive mayor could do the right thing and direct the Police Chief to send him home while FDLE completes its work.
I will concede to you that a mayor-council government is perhaps an environment more favourable to the development of cronyism, but it’s not like the council-manager government is immune to that. How many times have we seen lucrative City contracts go to friends of Council members? How many times have we seen groups or individuals get special treatment or consideration because they were friends with Council members or senior City staffers?
There are pros and cons with any form. There are a lot of things about the present system I like more than the proposed one, and vice-versa. And I think many of the City’s problems could have been addressed by making substantial changes within a council-manager system. So again, I think a lot of it comes back to the quality of the people we elect… but a change would shake things up, maybe.
“Take for example the completely unfounded anger which some local business leaders expressed at CRA Director Thad Cohen. Under the current system, the professional City Manager realised that the public pressure was unwarranted, and kept Thad Cohen in his position; however, an executive mayor in the same circumstances might have dismissed Mr. Cohen to appease powerful supporters”
Do I understand correctly that the executive mayor has to have the approval from Council to hire this position, but not to fire this position (under the new charter)?
Chastain:
That would be correct. Under the proposed charter, the mayor would appoint a City Administrator, the City Attorney, the City Clerk, and department heads (which the CRA director would be considered).
Neither appointment or removal of the City Administrator would not require Council approval.
Council approval would be required for BOTH the appointment and removal of either the City Attorney or City Clerk.
Council approval would be required for the appointment of department heads, but not for their removal.
This is outlined in Section 4.01 of the proposed charter if you want to reference it.
Employee issues didn’t stop mayor wiggings. The mayor talked to Coby and removed duties from Cohen at the blink of an eye.
The mayor condoned Sam Hall’s private meeting with someone trying to derail the ballpark as quid pro quo.
Private meetings are nothing new to the this 15 year encumbent
John — so giving the position of mayor more power would help in what way?
No!!
I can’t support strong mayor in the cradle of corruption.
Because the recent Airport deal couldnt happen in a manager / council form…..ohhhh sorry it did.
Jeff — I think that sort of “deal” would be much more prevalent under a strong mayor form of government. The mayor will owe those who gave money to get him/her elected. The city manager doesn’t owe anyone & serves at the pleasure of the city council. The city manager is a professional, educated & with experience running cities. I’ve heard the argument that the city manager has never been fired. I’ve only lived here during Bonfield & Coby’s tenures & didn’t see anything that indicated they should be fired.
What qualifications are required of a strong mayor — live in the city & don’t be convicted of a felony. And the strong mayor has full authority over the city administrator without any qualifications specified in the charter you support. You may have the money to buy your way into the strong mayor’s inner circle. I don’t.
James, the proposed charter would require the “city administrator” to have relevant experience, similarly to how the current charter requires the “city manager” to have relevant experience. The mayor would directly choose who is appointed, yes, but they can’t pick just anyone. Furthermore, the proposed charter allows for mayoral recall.
Joe: In all fairness, think the mayor really COULD pick anyone, because the mayor is the sole judge of his appointee’s “relevant experience.” I pushed the CRC and the Council to require Council approval for the administrator and lost. That said, I don’t think it’s that big of a deal, because other cities do it the way we’re proposing and they’re not falling apart. The mayor of course has political considerations to keep in mind, so he’s not going to appoint anyone that a majority of people are going to find just absolutely unacceptable.
The word “relevant” is subjective, but only to a point. If a strong mayor tried to hire someone without ANY urban planning or administration experience, not only would there be political repercussions, as you mentioned, but it would be in violation of the charter.
Relevant experience is nothing like the city has required for city managers. Relevant experience could be anything. And just how likely is it that a strong mayor will be recalled? Google it & you’ll see.
James, you are obviously inclined to believe that a strong mayor would immediately appoint his cousin and/or drinkin’ buddy to the city administrator position, and I won’t pretend that I could convince you otherwise. But your claim that a strong mayor could hire someone “without any qualifications” to be city administrator is demonstrably false.
It would indeed be a shame if we had a system that allowed nepotism or cronyism to take place — like, for example, if the brother of one department chief was hired as head of another department. But that could only happen under a ‘strong mayor’ charter, so I guess we’re safe.
Clyde Mathis is a great manager & highly qualified. The city should exclude siblings, spouses, etc. from consideration just because their relative also works for the city?
I’m sure Mathis is qualified. I’ve heard no specific complaints about him (other than the perennial port woes), but it seems highly unlikely that after contracting a headhunting firm and conducting a nationwide search, the most qualified person in the whole country just happened to be the brother of our police chief. What an amazing coincidence!
When the PNJ was listing the five candidates for consideration back in ’06, it gave his title as “marketing and business director” for the Port of New Orleans. Impressive! After he was hired, that title changed retroactively to “executive assistant” for the marketing and business department. Less impressive!
The city never mentioned that Clyde was John’s brother; it was revealed to the public by Mark O’Brien weeks after he was hired. I’d guess that Tom Bonfield was aware of the relationship; certainly the city staffers who compiled the list of finalists were. I wonder if the City Council knew? Since they have no part in hiring the port director under our current charter, and couldn’t fire him if they wanted to, there’s no reason why they should be informed.
If this were a strong mayor appointing someone who was a relative or a supporter (or a relative of a supporter), I doubt you would be so generous. In fact, the mere hypothetical possibility that such a thing could happen seems to be a major reason for you to vote against the charter. But here we have a very similar situation that has actually taken place under the current system, and you are defending it.
Joe — well, check out the qualification of the finalists. And city staff didn’t put that list together the search firm they paid $25,000 did. That firm vetted each candidate & sat in on all the interviews. If a strong mayor had used a professional search firm & the result was the recommendation that a sibling be hired, I would not object. But that’s not the way it works with a strong mayor form of government. Strong mayors owe their position to those who supported them with money & influence & they will make appointments, approve contracts, etc. that keep those people happy. Many professional search firms won’t even contract with cities that have strong mayors. The process is too often tainted by politics.
T-shirt idea: “We paid $25,000 for a national search and all we got was the police chief’s brother”
Whether or not the firm “vetted” the candidates, the finalists were decided by a committee made up of city staff and local businesspeople, and Mathis was hired by the city manager without council approval or public notice. Any conversations that may or may not have taken place between Police Chief Mathis and staff are lost, because they do not operate “in the Sunshine.”
On the other hand, the proposed charter requires all department heads to be approved by council, so a strong mayor can’t just appoint whomever to these posts. If the mayor or his administrator do try to make politically motivated appointments, they can be held accountable — either at the next election, or by the recall option that doesn’t exist under the current charter.
What we have now: nepotistic appointments to department chairs without oversight, unelected staff protecting their own, elected council members forbidden to investigate stagnant departments or fire ineffectual staff, and a complete lack of accountability.
To me the choice couldn’t be any plainer.
Joe — no, the finalists were not decided by a committe made up of city staff & local business people. The finalists were determined by the search firm. The interviews were conducted by a group of people determined by the city manager and a professional from the search firm sat in on the interviews. The city manager isn’t bought & sold by political interests. So how is this a “nepotistic appointment?” Which other appointments do you consider to be “nepotistic” — the fire chief, sanitation director, city engineer, parks & recreation director, community development director, airport director, etc.? And do you think that allowing the strong mayor to fire anyone he wants would be a good thing? And requiring a majority of city council members — all influenced by politics and beholding to the mayor — to agree to the person he wants to appoint is a good thing in what way? The mayor can be held accountable in 4 years. What damage will be done in the interim During that time, the mayor and city council could be at odds and departments would be without any leadership.
To me, the choice couldn’t be any plainer. Give me a professional city manager rather than a political mayor who needs to keep his big money supporters satisfied.
From the August 3, 2006 Pensacola News Journal: “The city contracted with Slavin Management Consultants of Norcross, Ga., in June to conduct a national search for candidates for the $92,000-a-year post. The search committee, which includes two city staffers, two local businessmen and a representative of the consulting company, will make a recommendation to City Manager Tom Bonfield. Bonfield will interview the candidates separately and make the final decision.”
Yes, I think it would be valuable to have a strong mayor who can fire underperforming personnel. Otherwise you get the current situation, where middling department heads float along until retirement. As long as you don’t burn down the building or something, it’s the most secure job in the world, because the city manager doesn’t want to step on any toes.
Yes, I think it’s important to let the council approve department heads before they get entrenched in the system. It would probably be rare that a hire would not be approved, but at least there is one more level of transparency and accountability that we don’t currently have.
“The mayor can be held accountable in 4 years…” Half right: the mayor can be held accountable IMMEDIATELY if there’s a recall. Right now the citizens have NO outlet for initiating direct change. Hell, even the petition to overturn council action is useless with regard to staffing issues, because the city council has no say in staffing.
I don’t see how you can call that a good thing unless you’re ON the city payroll. In which case… hey! No more posting during work hours! :)