Councilor Turner proposes council-city manager form of government

[Nik]

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20100624_11_0_TheCit170755

The council also decided Thursday to discuss in the near future of Councilor Roscoe Turner's proposal to change to a council-city manager form of city government.

Turner wants the proposal also to be on the November ballot as a City Charter amendment.

Councilor Jack Henderson said the advantage of having a city manager is that the person would be a professional who knows how to run a city.

He noted that many cities have that form of government.

Henderson said anyone can run for mayor, whether or not they know what they're doing, and "then you get stuck
with that person for four years, and that is who is running the city."

A city manager would be hired on the basis of his or her qualifications, he said. Henderson said a council can fire a city manager if it doesn't like the manger's performance.

"In this form of government the mayor would be a city councilor and the council would have more power than what it has today" under the current strong-mayor system, he said.

A group of about a dozen people gathered in front of City Hall on Thursday to show their support of Mayor Dewey Bartlett and their opposition to changing the city's form of government.

"We want to be able to vote on our officials and not have someone hired by the council," which would allow for no checks and balances, Deborah Sweetin said.

Tulsa changed from a city commission to a strong-mayor form of government in 1989.

Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20100624_11_0_TheCit170755

[Conan71]

I'm on the fence on this one based on current experience with how the city is being run.  It sounds as if the way the council is conceptualizing the city manager's position is that person would be their personal b!tch.  What happens if the citizenry doesn't like the city manager or the city manager is totally incompetent but the council refuses to fire them?  That's what makes me uncomfortable with the concept.

The closest thing we have to that now is Charles Hardt and no one is willing to fire him no matter how much scandal and incompetence comes out of Public Works.

There again, what have we gotten with Mayor Bartlet (sic)?  He's obviously a shill for Unelected Mayor (Whom I will now bestow the title "UM Simonson" in conversation here) Simonson.  At least we can vote them out in another three years and hopefully whomever the successor is won't be so bold as to re-hire UM Simonson.

[Rico]

I'm on the fence on this one based on current experience with how the city is being run.  It sounds as if the way the council is conceptualizing the city manager's position is that person would be their personal b!tch.  What happens if the citizenry doesn't like the city manager or the city manager is totally incompetent but the council refuses to fire them?  That's what makes me uncomfortable with the concept.

The closest thing we have to that now is Charles Hardt and no one is willing to fire him no matter how much scandal and incompetence comes out of Public Works.

There again, what have we gotten with Mayor Bartlet (sic)?  He's obviously a shill for Unelected Mayor (Whom I will now bestow the title "UM Simonson" in conversation here) Simonson.  At least we can vote them out in another three years and hopefully whomever the successor is won't be so bold as to re-hire UM Simonson.

I, like you, have not made a decision on this. The facts are not all in.

True, what voice would the Citizens have in this?
The Council, circa Medlock, came up with a proposal to add several Councilors at large. The addition of these Councilors at the time was not well received and was believed to have been the "good ole boys" trying to have full control of the Council.

Changes to the number of Councilors per District could offer a balance to a City Managers post.

Other cities in the area and throughout the country have benefited greatly from having a City Manager.

I honestly believe the current system benefits and represents fewer and is laden with personal preference rather than "The big picture".

There, is absolutely No reason the City of Tulsa could not move forward by leaps and bounds.

Small minded, personal agenda, political punks have had the wheel far to long.

I am done waiting on a miracle prodigal son.

If the City Manager could throw out the trash without naming his social and political crony to some lifelong, well paid position for us to endure I am for it.



Tulsa needs to move ahead. Be done with the "Oil Royalty" ruling class and their agenda to make money for their dynasty through debt paid by the taxes in this town.

If that sounds anything like Friendly Bear I apologize.

Thought a picture would add some relief to a boring political soap opera

[RecycleMichael]

I like the Queen for a day concept.

Sell lottery tickets and the winner gets to be Mayor/CityManager/Godfather for that day.

I would buy a ticket.

[waterboy]

I concur with Rico. But I would support the change to city manager as long as it is done with some intelligence. That's the rub though. Hard to find common sense, intelligence and non-political thinking around this city. It works for smaller cities but we aren't a smaller city.

The strongest argument for it is the wide sweep of the last few mayors. From gung ho corporate activist style to benign inneffective cronyism, these are just politicians moving through the process. THey may have the vision thing, but they don't have the operations skills that trained city manager's possess.

[Conan71]

I like the Queen for a day concept.

Sell lottery tickets and the winner gets to be Mayor/CityManager/Godfather for that day.

I would buy a ticket.

You just had to go there...

[Hoss]

You just had to go there...

OK, now to find the Pepto....looks like Doctor Frankenfurter goes to the prom.

[Conan71]

I concur with Rico. But I would support the change to city manager as long as it is done with some intelligence. That's the rub though. Hard to find common sense, intelligence and non-political thinking around this city. It works for smaller cities but we aren't a smaller city.

The strongest argument for it is the wide sweep of the last few mayors. From gung ho corporate activist style to benign inneffective cronyism, these are just politicians moving through the process. THey may have the vision thing, but they don't have the operations skills that trained city manager's possess.

My concept of "City Manager" has always centered around towns/cities the size of Jenks, Owasso, BA, or Bixby.  I was curious how that would work for a city the size of Tulsa and turns out San Antonio has such a position.  This might be a good place to start to see how it's implimented in other areas with similar MSA's or even larger ones.

http://www.sanantonio.gov/manager/

[Gaspar]

I like the idea, as long as some checks are in place.  The problem with most big cities (and companies) is that it's nearly impossible to make executive decisions by committee.  Throw in political aspirations, and nothing gets done.

The City Manager concept removes much of the minutiae from the plate of the mayor and counsel, allowing them to focus on what is important rather than arguing over salt purchases and truck tires.

Chamber arguments and grandstanding related to politics, and the embarrassing press that follows, could be greatly diminished. 

I'm sure there are some disadvantages that we need to explore, but there are many very successful cities larger than Tulsa that employ this structure.  We should probably spend some time interviewing them.

[swake]

My concept of "City Manager" has always centered around towns/cities the size of Jenks, Owasso, BA, or Bixby.  I was curious how that would work for a city the size of Tulsa and turns out San Antonio has such a position.  This might be a good place to start to see how it's implimented in other areas with similar MSA's or even larger ones.

http://www.sanantonio.gov/manager/

Oklahoma City is one too. The mayor there is really only a figurehead. He's an at large city councilor that leads the council, not the head of the city. The council hires a city manager to run the city.

http://www.okc.gov/council/index.html

[RecycleMichael]

While I don't argue that something needs to change, I am not sure a city manager hired and fired by the city council is any better.

I have worked for ten different communities that have this form of local government. I have seen very good city managers fired in 48 hours because they said something to one councilor who got a few others to agree to be outraged. I have seen city manager firings used as a campaign promise by council candidates. I have seen city manager firings for political blame for things out of their hands like floods.

Being a city manager for a town with a contentious city council is a terrible job.

[dbacks fan]

While I don't argue that something needs to change, I am not sure a city manager hired and fired by the city council is any better.

I have worked for ten different communities that have this form of local government. I have seen very good city managers fired in 48 hours because they said something to one councilor who got a few others to agree to be outraged. I have seen city manager firings used as a campaign promise by council candidates. I have seen city manager firings for political blame for things out of their hands like floods.

Being a city manager for a town with a contentious city council is a terrible job.

Very well said RM, and where I work fits last line of your comment.

[Gaspar]

That's a good point RM, but that IS the point. 

City Manager is a terrible job.  It is unlike most other public sector positions in that you have a very good chance of getting fired for poor performance.  Politicking or pandering will get you canned too.  Show weakness and you're out.  Get into a pi$$ing match with a counsel member, and bye bye. It's a lot like a private sector position. . .COO of a public company.

City Managers are typically paid very well making dealing with idiots more tolerable.  Good city managers keep their heads down and work very hard.  They have to be detached from opinion and politics.  They go into the job knowing it's a mine-field.  They are goldfish in a blender.  Very efficient goldfish.

When they're ineffective they are replaced.  No term limits, just a contract. 

[Conan71]

That's a good point RM, but that IS the point. 

City Manager is a terrible job.  It is unlike most other public sector positions in that you have a very good chance of getting fired for poor performance.  Politicking or pandering will get you canned too.  Show weakness and you're out.  Get into a pi$$ing match with a counsel member, and bye bye. It's a lot like a private sector position. . .COO of a public company.

City Managers are typically paid very well making dealing with idiots more tolerable.  Good city managers keep their heads down and work very hard.  They have to be detached from opinion and politics.  They go into the job knowing it's a mine-field.  They are goldfish in a blender.  Very efficient goldfish.

When they're ineffective they are replaced.  No term limits, just a contract. 

So basically there's a contract which is either renewed or not at the option of the council, you are ringing some bells now.  I don't know why that didn't occur to me.  I guess because the way Tulsa is run is so massively screwed up, I automatically assume the worst possible outcome for the average citizen and the most insulation and protection for the idiot bureaucrat. 

[Gaspar]

So basically there's a contract which is either renewed or not at the option of the council, you are ringing some bells now.  I don't know why that didn't occur to me.  I guess because the way Tulsa is run is so massively screwed up, I automatically assume the worst possible outcome for the average citizen and the most insulation and protection for the idiot bureaucrat. 

Correct.  It is also typically set in ink that the CM will not run for public office or accept a similar position in a competitive market.  The idea is to eliminate the "bureaucratic" or political nature of the position. Most CMs are closer to analysts than public officials.  They bury themselves in data and studies so that every decision they make can be backed up with precedent and firm ROI information.