Council-Manager ("Strong City Manager") vs. Mayor-Council ("Strong Mayor")
68% of the people of Pueblo smartly decided to keep Pueblo's progressive & revolutionary 1954 City Charter intact 8 years ago. In 2009, 68% of the people of Pueblo rejected the "Strong Mayor/Weak Council" Amendment. Denver's "strong mayor/weak city council" system is used an example for Pueblo to emulate, but Denver County & Denver City has also been consolidated for 115 years now (since November 15, 1902). I'm in favor of uniting the City of Pueblo with Pueblo County, so if we're trying to be like Denver, then we better hurry up & Consolidate our County & City first.
Nicholas Gradisar, a Pueblo lawyer & Water Board Member, is a major force behind the push for the "Mayor-Council" amendment. City Councilmen Bob Schilling (up for reelection) & Chris Nicoll (not up for reelection) both are for overthrowing Pueblo's current legal infrastructure with the "Mayor-Council" Amendment too.
Mr. Gradisar rejects the characterization of this issue as a debate between a "strong mayor" or a "weak mayor". Instead, Mr. Gradisar says that the debate is between a "full-time elected mayor" or a "part time mayor". This is not correct either. 1 group wants a "strong mayor/weak council" government, & they have successfully put their unanimously-sanctioned-by-city-council Amendment on the 2017 ballot. Another group is pushing for a "weak mayor/strong council", but they haven't got their issue on the 2017 ballot yet. I reject both of these groups. Pueblo does not need a Mayor. Steamboat Springs, Colorado doesn't need a "Mayor" either. And really, if it's just about a "title", the "Mayor" of Pueblo, structurally speaking, is identical to the "President of City Council", aka Steve Nawrocki. But personally, to me, the title of the "President of City Council" is much more powerful sounding than a puny little weak title of "Mayor". Structurally speaking, Steve Nawrocki is the face of Pueblo (head of state), like the mostly ceremonial Queen of England, but Sam Azad is the head & the body of Pueblo (head of government), like the Prime Minister of England. And while President Steve Nawrocki isn't the all powerful City Manager chief executive, he does have a bunch of power. The President of City Council is the one who chairs the city council meetings. President Nawrocki orders the agenda, calls for the votes on resolutions, & dictates the entire narrative of the city council meeting. The President of City Council, for all intended purposes, functions as a facilitator mayor, a strategist-in-chief, & the chief parliamentarian.
The choice isn't between a "strong mayor" or a "weak mayor", for me. For me, the choice is between allowing a small cabal of men to electorally overthrow Pueblo into a "Mayor-Council" form of government, OR keeping Pueblo's current "Council-Manager" system the exact same. That's it. Approve or reject "Strong Mayor". Do you want a "Mayor-Council" system or a "Council Manager" system? That's it. That's the 2 sides of the debate for me: Mayor-Council vs Council-Manager. Pay attention to those terms - "Council-Manager" & "Mayor-Council" - because their ordering is important. The political science mechanisms of a Mayor-Council system is that the Mayor is in charge, and the City Council is called upon to mostly follow along. For our Council-Manager system, the Manager is in charge, once they are hired by the City Council, & then the Council dictates their parameters of policy to the Manager. A "Mayor-Council" form of government is a powerful Daddy who tells the 7 city council children what to do, and "Council-Manager" is the 7 city council member children telling powerful Daddy what to do. Which is better? This is a discussion that political scientists have been having for years. There's pros & cons for both sides. It was a good thing when the Radical Republicans & Abolitionists pressured Abraham Lincoln into issuing his "Emancipation Proclamation", and it was a bad thing when Andrew Jackson enforced the "Trail of Tears", even though the Supreme Court ruled his behavior as unconstitutional.
Ultimately, I want the best policies to be implemented. In the great pool of ideas, only the best ideas should prevail. Sometimes the Executive Branch is right, and sometimes the Legislative Branch is right. "Checks & balances" is a cornerstone to the 1789 US Constitution for a reason. The reason we Americans have "checks & balances" is to make sure we never have a tyrannical despotic oppressive King ever again. That's the reason why we fought the American Revolution, and that's the reason we divide powers up between different folks. Under the Mayor-Council form of government, we the people, through our City Council representatives (i.e. the People's people) can't fire the King. The city council will be weaker under Mayor-Council. I'm in favor of giving more power to the "People's people". I want a Strong City Council. Under the Mayor-Council system, there's very little checks & balances on the Mayor's power. With a "Strong Mayor" system, the "People's people" is subordinate to their Fuhrer, their chief executive. With a "Strong Manager" system, the chief executive Fuhrer is subordinate to the "People's people". I'd rather have some legislative checks & balances on the Fuhrer, even if it's just the 7 members of council, than no check at all. If folks are pissed at Pueblo's current chief executive, imagine if the chief executive had even less checks & balances! The danger of a "Strong Mayor" becoming an unbearable tyrant is infinitely worse than the current Strong City Manager system.
At least with our current Council-Manager system, the City Council can fire the strong chief executive. With the Mayor-Council system, we'd have to file a petition for recall to remove the chief executive. The chief executive under the proposed Mayor-Council system becoming a despotic totalitarian tyrant is guaranteed by design.
The Council-Manager system is the "Strong City Manager" system, & Mayor-Council system is the "Strong Mayor" system. Those are our 2 choices. Those who are calling for a "Mayor-Council" form of government seem to be calling for an all powerful monarch (rule by 1) to run roughshod over us all. It's a weird debate, because while there's nuanced political science mechanisms that political scientists can debate between the 2 systems, the City of Pueblo already has a strong executive power. While a "Strong Mayor" may have more power - since they don't have worry about the weak city council - a "Strong Manager" is still a very, very strong executive power. Overall, the differences between them are nil, although finding the nuances are fun to find, & compare & contrast. But overall, in the big picture scheme of things, all things being equal, the choice is like a difference between Superman with a grappling hook, or a Batman who can fly, has laser eyes, can see through walls, unlimited strength, & can fly.
The choice between "Council-Manager" versus "Mayor-Council" is more precisely a choice between a "Strong City Manager" or a "Strong Mayor", respectively. In terms of having an all-powerful executive, changing from a Strong City Manager to a Strong Mayor wouldn't change much. The current City Manager position is a very powerful position. From Section 4-5 of Pueblo's revolutionary & progressive 1954 City Charter, the City Manager:
1) hires & fires the Chief of Police & Chief of Fire;
2) has the "power to appoint, suspend and remove heads or directors of all bureaus, departments, and city employees." This includes everybody who works in all of these Pueblo Departments: Police, Fire, Health, Wastewater, Stormwater, Aviation, Planning & Community Development, Deputy City Manager Internal Services, Parks & Recreation, Public Works, Civil Service, Housing & Citizen Services, Fleet Maintenace, Human Resources, Information Technology, Purchasing, & Pueblo Transit.
3) exercises supervision and control over all executive and administrative departments and agencies created herein or that may be hereafter created by the Council;
4) is responsible for enforcement of the laws & ordinances of the City;
5) prepare an annual Budget, & submit it to Council, & then be responsible for its administration after adoption;
6) must prepare a yearly report on the complete "finances and administrative activities of the City for the preceding year", and keep the Council advised of the financial condition, & making the necessary recommendations on the future needs of the City;
7) report violations of the corporations or public utility franchises whom the city has contracted with;
8) must participate in discussions of the Council in an advisory capacity;
Will the proposed "Strong Mayor" have the same powers the City Manager currently has? What powers are increased for the chief executive in "Strong Mayor"? What powers are decreased? Will the proposed "Strong Mayor" have more or less power than the City Manager, overall? It's not clear who is more powerful between the "Strong Mayor" & the "Strong City Manager".
The "Strong Mayor" Amendment illegal, & therefore, criminal. My main argument against killing Pueblo City's current "Strong City Manager" system - which has functioned for the last 63 years - is that the "Strong Mayor" Amendment contradicts fundamentally the foundational, legal, & structural tenets of the entire 1954 City Charter. The 3rd sentence of our City Charter sets our "Council-Manager" form of government in permenant stone, unless it's changed by a "Charter Convention upon majority vote of the qualified voters" (Section 1-2).
It feels a bit weird being a conservative voice, but you see, I'm fighting to conserve Pueblo's revolutionary & progressive 1954 City Charter. I'm not against change. Au contraire. I would be in favor of a Charter Convention, only if it's makes it more revolutionary & progressive. If Pueblo decided to have a Charter Convention, here's my 8 pro-democracy demands: 1) Strong Bill of Rights; 2) Ranked Choice Voting; 3) 3 Branches, Checks & Balances; 4) Ban Gerrymandering; 5) Ban $ from politics; have government financed & administered elections; 6) Citizen's Complaint Authority instituted; 7) Framework for Consolidated Govt, &; 8) Protect Colorado's institutions of initiative, referendum, & recall. That's the framework of ideas I would carry with me into a Charter Convention.
I would be in favor of rewriting Pueblo's revolutionary & progressive 1954 City Charter at a Charter Convention only if it makes it more revolutionary & progressive. My current fear is that a small cabal of crooks is about to rewrite the entire rules to the way Pueblo governs. I don't know the intentions of the folks pushing for this, nor do I know of anybody calling for the Charter to be more revolutionary & progressive than what it already is. All 7 city council members approved this Amendment, this ballot referendum, and 4 of the 7 members are up for re-election. So there's at least 3 remaining city council members - Larry Atencio, Ray Aguilera, & Chris Nicoll - who will be in charge of implementing this new "Strong Mayor/Weak Council" system if passed on November 7, 2017. Nicoll is for a Weak Council/Strong Mayor, as is Bob Schilling. Then there's the advisors for these folks, the folks in the background, the owners of Pueblo, & the Deep City. Who are the ones who are going to be implementing this? Considering the Constitutional Crisis & Calamity that's going to happen on November 8 if this illegal & criminal Amendment passes & electorally overthrows the 1954 Charter, having a Charter Convention would be better. Having a Charter Convention would be upright & upfront & honest, and it opens the door for more folks to join in the process of rewriting the City Charter. I wouldn't question the intentions of those who call for a Charter Convention. I do question the intentions of those who are trying to sneakily & creepily slip a Charter-destroying Amendment on the November 2017 ballot, and what their post-election game plans are for it.
I'm voting adamantly "No" against the proposed "Mayor-Council" form of government. I reject changing Pueblo into a "weak mayor/strong council" or into a "strong mayor/weak council" system. I reject changing Pueblo's 1954 City Charter at all. I reject having a Mayor at all. Having a President of City Council & a City Manager instead of a Mayor is just fine & dandy to me. A Strong City Manager will be just as effective as a Strong Mayor, so the proposed change doesn't change much of anything really. It's more of a "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titantic" kind of thang. The proposed Weak Council/Strong Mayor form of government is illegal & criminal & unconstitutional, & therefore it torpedos our 1954 City Charter. I'm in favor of keeping the "Council-Manager" system as Pueblo's government, as Pueblo's revolutionary & progressive 1954 City Charter dictates. I'm for a Strong City Manager.
I'm on #TeamCouncilManager.
Nicholas Gradisar, a Pueblo lawyer & Water Board Member, is a major force behind the push for the "Mayor-Council" amendment. City Councilmen Bob Schilling (up for reelection) & Chris Nicoll (not up for reelection) both are for overthrowing Pueblo's current legal infrastructure with the "Mayor-Council" Amendment too.
Mr. Gradisar rejects the characterization of this issue as a debate between a "strong mayor" or a "weak mayor". Instead, Mr. Gradisar says that the debate is between a "full-time elected mayor" or a "part time mayor". This is not correct either. 1 group wants a "strong mayor/weak council" government, & they have successfully put their unanimously-sanctioned-by-city-council Amendment on the 2017 ballot. Another group is pushing for a "weak mayor/strong council", but they haven't got their issue on the 2017 ballot yet. I reject both of these groups. Pueblo does not need a Mayor. Steamboat Springs, Colorado doesn't need a "Mayor" either. And really, if it's just about a "title", the "Mayor" of Pueblo, structurally speaking, is identical to the "President of City Council", aka Steve Nawrocki. But personally, to me, the title of the "President of City Council" is much more powerful sounding than a puny little weak title of "Mayor". Structurally speaking, Steve Nawrocki is the face of Pueblo (head of state), like the mostly ceremonial Queen of England, but Sam Azad is the head & the body of Pueblo (head of government), like the Prime Minister of England. And while President Steve Nawrocki isn't the all powerful City Manager chief executive, he does have a bunch of power. The President of City Council is the one who chairs the city council meetings. President Nawrocki orders the agenda, calls for the votes on resolutions, & dictates the entire narrative of the city council meeting. The President of City Council, for all intended purposes, functions as a facilitator mayor, a strategist-in-chief, & the chief parliamentarian.
The choice isn't between a "strong mayor" or a "weak mayor", for me. For me, the choice is between allowing a small cabal of men to electorally overthrow Pueblo into a "Mayor-Council" form of government, OR keeping Pueblo's current "Council-Manager" system the exact same. That's it. Approve or reject "Strong Mayor". Do you want a "Mayor-Council" system or a "Council Manager" system? That's it. That's the 2 sides of the debate for me: Mayor-Council vs Council-Manager. Pay attention to those terms - "Council-Manager" & "Mayor-Council" - because their ordering is important. The political science mechanisms of a Mayor-Council system is that the Mayor is in charge, and the City Council is called upon to mostly follow along. For our Council-Manager system, the Manager is in charge, once they are hired by the City Council, & then the Council dictates their parameters of policy to the Manager. A "Mayor-Council" form of government is a powerful Daddy who tells the 7 city council children what to do, and "Council-Manager" is the 7 city council member children telling powerful Daddy what to do. Which is better? This is a discussion that political scientists have been having for years. There's pros & cons for both sides. It was a good thing when the Radical Republicans & Abolitionists pressured Abraham Lincoln into issuing his "Emancipation Proclamation", and it was a bad thing when Andrew Jackson enforced the "Trail of Tears", even though the Supreme Court ruled his behavior as unconstitutional.
Ultimately, I want the best policies to be implemented. In the great pool of ideas, only the best ideas should prevail. Sometimes the Executive Branch is right, and sometimes the Legislative Branch is right. "Checks & balances" is a cornerstone to the 1789 US Constitution for a reason. The reason we Americans have "checks & balances" is to make sure we never have a tyrannical despotic oppressive King ever again. That's the reason why we fought the American Revolution, and that's the reason we divide powers up between different folks. Under the Mayor-Council form of government, we the people, through our City Council representatives (i.e. the People's people) can't fire the King. The city council will be weaker under Mayor-Council. I'm in favor of giving more power to the "People's people". I want a Strong City Council. Under the Mayor-Council system, there's very little checks & balances on the Mayor's power. With a "Strong Mayor" system, the "People's people" is subordinate to their Fuhrer, their chief executive. With a "Strong Manager" system, the chief executive Fuhrer is subordinate to the "People's people". I'd rather have some legislative checks & balances on the Fuhrer, even if it's just the 7 members of council, than no check at all. If folks are pissed at Pueblo's current chief executive, imagine if the chief executive had even less checks & balances! The danger of a "Strong Mayor" becoming an unbearable tyrant is infinitely worse than the current Strong City Manager system.
At least with our current Council-Manager system, the City Council can fire the strong chief executive. With the Mayor-Council system, we'd have to file a petition for recall to remove the chief executive. The chief executive under the proposed Mayor-Council system becoming a despotic totalitarian tyrant is guaranteed by design.
The Council-Manager system is the "Strong City Manager" system, & Mayor-Council system is the "Strong Mayor" system. Those are our 2 choices. Those who are calling for a "Mayor-Council" form of government seem to be calling for an all powerful monarch (rule by 1) to run roughshod over us all. It's a weird debate, because while there's nuanced political science mechanisms that political scientists can debate between the 2 systems, the City of Pueblo already has a strong executive power. While a "Strong Mayor" may have more power - since they don't have worry about the weak city council - a "Strong Manager" is still a very, very strong executive power. Overall, the differences between them are nil, although finding the nuances are fun to find, & compare & contrast. But overall, in the big picture scheme of things, all things being equal, the choice is like a difference between Superman with a grappling hook, or a Batman who can fly, has laser eyes, can see through walls, unlimited strength, & can fly.
The choice between "Council-Manager" versus "Mayor-Council" is more precisely a choice between a "Strong City Manager" or a "Strong Mayor", respectively. In terms of having an all-powerful executive, changing from a Strong City Manager to a Strong Mayor wouldn't change much. The current City Manager position is a very powerful position. From Section 4-5 of Pueblo's revolutionary & progressive 1954 City Charter, the City Manager:
1) hires & fires the Chief of Police & Chief of Fire;
2) has the "power to appoint, suspend and remove heads or directors of all bureaus, departments, and city employees." This includes everybody who works in all of these Pueblo Departments: Police, Fire, Health, Wastewater, Stormwater, Aviation, Planning & Community Development, Deputy City Manager Internal Services, Parks & Recreation, Public Works, Civil Service, Housing & Citizen Services, Fleet Maintenace, Human Resources, Information Technology, Purchasing, & Pueblo Transit.
3) exercises supervision and control over all executive and administrative departments and agencies created herein or that may be hereafter created by the Council;
4) is responsible for enforcement of the laws & ordinances of the City;
5) prepare an annual Budget, & submit it to Council, & then be responsible for its administration after adoption;
6) must prepare a yearly report on the complete "finances and administrative activities of the City for the preceding year", and keep the Council advised of the financial condition, & making the necessary recommendations on the future needs of the City;
7) report violations of the corporations or public utility franchises whom the city has contracted with;
8) must participate in discussions of the Council in an advisory capacity;
[This above Organizational Chart is from the 2014 State of the City Report.]
Will the proposed "Strong Mayor" have the same powers the City Manager currently has? What powers are increased for the chief executive in "Strong Mayor"? What powers are decreased? Will the proposed "Strong Mayor" have more or less power than the City Manager, overall? It's not clear who is more powerful between the "Strong Mayor" & the "Strong City Manager".
The "Strong Mayor" Amendment illegal, & therefore, criminal. My main argument against killing Pueblo City's current "Strong City Manager" system - which has functioned for the last 63 years - is that the "Strong Mayor" Amendment contradicts fundamentally the foundational, legal, & structural tenets of the entire 1954 City Charter. The 3rd sentence of our City Charter sets our "Council-Manager" form of government in permenant stone, unless it's changed by a "Charter Convention upon majority vote of the qualified voters" (Section 1-2).
It feels a bit weird being a conservative voice, but you see, I'm fighting to conserve Pueblo's revolutionary & progressive 1954 City Charter. I'm not against change. Au contraire. I would be in favor of a Charter Convention, only if it's makes it more revolutionary & progressive. If Pueblo decided to have a Charter Convention, here's my 8 pro-democracy demands: 1) Strong Bill of Rights; 2) Ranked Choice Voting; 3) 3 Branches, Checks & Balances; 4) Ban Gerrymandering; 5) Ban $ from politics; have government financed & administered elections; 6) Citizen's Complaint Authority instituted; 7) Framework for Consolidated Govt, &; 8) Protect Colorado's institutions of initiative, referendum, & recall. That's the framework of ideas I would carry with me into a Charter Convention.
I would be in favor of rewriting Pueblo's revolutionary & progressive 1954 City Charter at a Charter Convention only if it makes it more revolutionary & progressive. My current fear is that a small cabal of crooks is about to rewrite the entire rules to the way Pueblo governs. I don't know the intentions of the folks pushing for this, nor do I know of anybody calling for the Charter to be more revolutionary & progressive than what it already is. All 7 city council members approved this Amendment, this ballot referendum, and 4 of the 7 members are up for re-election. So there's at least 3 remaining city council members - Larry Atencio, Ray Aguilera, & Chris Nicoll - who will be in charge of implementing this new "Strong Mayor/Weak Council" system if passed on November 7, 2017. Nicoll is for a Weak Council/Strong Mayor, as is Bob Schilling. Then there's the advisors for these folks, the folks in the background, the owners of Pueblo, & the Deep City. Who are the ones who are going to be implementing this? Considering the Constitutional Crisis & Calamity that's going to happen on November 8 if this illegal & criminal Amendment passes & electorally overthrows the 1954 Charter, having a Charter Convention would be better. Having a Charter Convention would be upright & upfront & honest, and it opens the door for more folks to join in the process of rewriting the City Charter. I wouldn't question the intentions of those who call for a Charter Convention. I do question the intentions of those who are trying to sneakily & creepily slip a Charter-destroying Amendment on the November 2017 ballot, and what their post-election game plans are for it.
I'm voting adamantly "No" against the proposed "Mayor-Council" form of government. I reject changing Pueblo into a "weak mayor/strong council" or into a "strong mayor/weak council" system. I reject changing Pueblo's 1954 City Charter at all. I reject having a Mayor at all. Having a President of City Council & a City Manager instead of a Mayor is just fine & dandy to me. A Strong City Manager will be just as effective as a Strong Mayor, so the proposed change doesn't change much of anything really. It's more of a "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titantic" kind of thang. The proposed Weak Council/Strong Mayor form of government is illegal & criminal & unconstitutional, & therefore it torpedos our 1954 City Charter. I'm in favor of keeping the "Council-Manager" system as Pueblo's government, as Pueblo's revolutionary & progressive 1954 City Charter dictates. I'm for a Strong City Manager.
I'm on #TeamCouncilManager.
Comments
Post a Comment