Opinion 6 from Byron Kessler
There are those in our community who contend that the lack of sufficient concentration of power is at fault for our failure to achieve greater economic progress. If only, they tell us, we had greater authority vested in a single individual, we would free ourselves from the mire of economic stagnation. Take a moment to digest the logic and reasoning of that thesis.
Like an overwhelming majority of cities of our size, Pensacola has for nearly a century been governed by a group of elected council members who make policy decisions, and a hired professional to direct the day to day operations of the city. It’s called a “council-manager†form of government. The nation’s universities graduate men and women each year trained in the intricacies of public administration. Why? Why is there a need? It is because the many functions of city government that provide the necessary services and security to the population are complex and multi-faceted; not a job for the novice or amateur, or for the ambitious pretender.
Rebuttal: Kessler’s assumption is Pensacola has no good leaders. That among its number, no one is capable of leading the city and capable of leading capable professionals to run the city.
Government at the state and national level, and larger metropolitan areas have an executive as well as a legislative branch. The President and state governors have extraordinary authority in order to react to emergencies and to provide for public security, as do the mayors of cities like New York and Los Angeles. Even at those levels periodic examples of abuse of authority are not infrequent. With more concentrated power comes greater temptation and opportunity to abuse it. Absent a compelling need for an executive branch, a council-manager form of government better preserves the traditional relationship between citizen and elected representative.
Consider this: A nation-wide pool of experienced professionals qualified in public administration could compete for the position of city manager should that position become vacant. The duties and responsibilities of a city manager and of a “strong mayor†are essentially the same with respect to administration. The qualification for a strong mayor, should we adopt that form of government, is to be a registered voter in Pensacola. Period. Would anyone knowingly trade a trained professional for a politician to oversee the administration of our city? Would he trade experience for ambition, or expedience for reasoned decisions?
Rebuttal: The CRC took that in consideration by adding the city administrator position. The new charter also has the city council approving all department heads, something that doesn’t happen now.
Mr. Kessler also assumes that a resident of Pensacola would care less about his/her city than a paid employee who lives elsewhere; that an elected official is more ambitious and more expedient than a hire hand who may leave Pensacola for a greater job like Bonfield or Frank Miller. An elected official may live here the rest of his life. Our last two City managers live elsewhere and don’t have to live with the consequences of their actions….think pensions.
The charter review, you may recall, was a fall-out from discussions and disagreements about the City’s handling of the petition drive and scheduling of a referendum in 2006.
City Council rightly acknowledged the need for a comprehensive review of its charter. Strong mayor proponents, however, viewed it as an opportunity to achieve what they may not have been able to achieve with a direct and sincere appeal to voters. Rather, they co-opted the charter review as a vehicle to accomplish their objective. Retention of our present council-manager form of government was never an option they seriously considered.
Rebuttal: No, the charter review, on you can read the council minutes from 2007, was done to avoid a discussion of strong mayor. A group came before the council asking that they consider forming a committee to study it. Instead the council chose to form the CRC, realizing the charter had not been thoroughly reviewed since 1931. The council completely controlled who was put on the CRC.
Mr. Kessler’s version isn’t true. One of the biggest supporters of Save Our City. C.C. Elebash, supports this charter and wants strong mayor. So his theory of a “strong mayor†conspiracy rising up our the CMP petition is ridiculous.
So is his assertion that council-mayor wasn’t seriously considered. Read the minutes of the meeting. The CRC was appointed by a council that wasn’t necessarily in favor of strong mayor – Wiggin. Wu, Canada-Wynn, Nobles, DeSorbo and Jerralds all opposed the strong mayor concept. There were more than enough votes to stack the CRC against any idea, but they didn’t. The Council trusted the citizens to do the best that they could.
No conspiracies here.
In November, you will be asked by mail-in ballot to vote for the most radical departure from our present form of government in nearly seven decades. Don’t be mislead. A “mayor council†form of government is more commonly known as a “strong mayor†form. If you conclude that all the economic ills and failures of our city could have been prevented by granting a single individual with heretofore unimagined authority, you may wish to vote yes. If you wish to preserve, however, the authority of your district council member, to pursue concerns and complaints on your behalf, you may want to think twice. And those who sincerely seek to mend what is broken would do well to consider those words often attributed to Hippocrates ( though their actual origin is subject to conjecture): “First, do no harmâ€.
Byron Keesler
Rebuttal: Fear is very much a theme for No Boss Mayor. The new charter doesn’t dilute the power of the district representatives. The council size is reduced to nine. The Council gains the power of approving department heads. The Council members elect their own chairman to run the meetings. The Council may even elect to finally let the individual council members put items on the agenda.