CA-01-08: City Administrator

Alderman Israel has introduced a charter amendment that would redefine the responsibilities of the city administrator and other key city roles, cementing his position of guru of governmental operations.

CA-01-08 would do a number of things:

-Give the city council supervisory power over the expenditure of public money and delivery of municipal services; however, with the specific exclusion that no alderman may "direct the work of a director or an employee of a department".

-Create permanent, full-time support positions exclusively for the aldermen: budget analyst/financial advisor, research assistant, and administrative assistant. The day-to-day functions of these individuals would be determined by a majority vote of the aldermen.

-Specify the city administrator as the boss of daily city operations.

-Specify the Mayor's primary duties as "formulation of policy and long-range plans, the recommendation of implementing legislation; and the general supervision of the city's finances".

-Have the city administrator, rather than the mayor, appoint department directors. The city administrator's appointments would have to be approved by the mayor and confirmed by the city council.

-Make it harder to fire the city administrator, by requiring the Mayor AND four or more of the aldermen to support removal.

What The 'Players' Think About This

Alderman Israel's head is in the right place--he wants to install more checks on the Mayor's power and give more power and resources to the city council. From his guest column in The Sun:

An election does not guarantee that a mayor will have the managerial skills
needed to effectively supervise the delivery of routine municipal
services.

It has long been recognized that there is a distinction between policy and
administration. This distinction is reflected in the existing charter, which
characterizes the mayor as the chief executive officer and the city
administrator as the chief administrative officer.

The proposed charter amendment that I will introduce tomorrow would give
the city administrator the initiative in hiring and firing decisions. To make
sure that there is accountability to the voters, an appointment would be subject
to approval by the mayor and the consent of the council. Dismissal would be
subject to approval by the mayor.

His column mainly serves to detail the provisions of the bill; however, the implied theme is to guarantee professional management and accountability. The column is short on rhetoric, but does offer an attempt at persuasion:

As the city's residents prepare to celebrate the 300th anniversary of the
granting of the first charter, nothing could be more appropriate than amending
the charter to provide for more effective professional administration and yet
retain accountability of elected officials through the electoral process.

The Mayor, for her part, is not happy. The Sun gave Mayor Moyer her say, and here's how she made use of it:

I am amazed that Alderman Richard Israel, who has spent most of his career as a lawyer in the office of the attorney general, would begin 2008 with an assault on
representative government as he does with Charter Amendment CA-01-08.

Article IV, Section 2A and Article 5, Section 1 of the proposed
amendment muzzle the aldermen and mayor by making any direction to city
employees relative to policy an action of misconduct subject to recall. This is
a gag rule that renders null and void the vote of the public for representative
government. Like Oliver Cromwell in the 1600s, Alderman Israel would transfer
the essential powers of government from the mayor and city council to a non elected
bureaucrat.

I mentioned above that Alderman Israel's column was devoid of rhetoric, and the Mayor was certain not to make that mistake, as you can see. After defending her record of accomplishments as the chief executive and describing the adverse costs of the proposed amendment, she provided some fabulously pertinent soundbites:

This amendment would not be implemented until I am out of office. However,
I believe that the deeper implications of this proposal are grave. This is not a
simple "clarification of roles." Passing this amendment would result in a
fundamental change in governance.

If we really want to shift power to a non elected bureaucrat,
it would be more honest to eliminate the mayor as chief executive and reduce the
salary to $25,000 for time spent cutting ribbons, leading parades and making
speeches. The salaries of the aldermen could also be eliminated and council
meetings held less frequently.

Our current system of checks and balances may be frustrating and slow,
but government is meant to be as it was established in Maryland in 1632 -- open,
constituent-based, respecting the will of the people, arguing, debating and
finally coming to consensus. This is democracy.

What Do I Think About This

Despite what the Mayor would have you believe, this charter amendment is nearly meaningless. If you are going to empower a non elected bureaucrat, you had better guarantee accountability, and this bill falls short.

Let's elaborate. The problems with the current form of government--at least those problems potentially addressed by this CA--are as follows:

1. Too much power for the mayor. The mayor is the chief executive, the chief operating officer, and the chief ambassador.

2. City administrator position is useless. The city administrator, who should be a strong chief operating officer, serves at the pleasure of the mayor, makes less money than the department heads he is supposed to supervise, and has no authority to hire or fire. Even if he did, the Mayor can fire him at a whim, so if he wants to keep his job, he will do what she wants. The result is that his duties are controlled by the Mayor.

3. Poor treatment of city council. For goodness sake, they don't have offices, staff, desks, or even letterhead, they work all day long, and they get paid $12,600 per year. Awful.

Let's start with the good things. Providing a shared research staff for the aldermen is absolutely a good thing. As everyone knows, famously in the case of Alderman Arnett, the alderman have an impossible time keeping up with their duties and responding to citizen concerns. To the extent that this staff helps them, it is a good thing.

Unfortunately, that's where the good ends. The shortfalls with this bill are:

-The city administrator is still appointed by the Mayor. The city council cannot hire him, and they cannot fire him without approval from the mayor. The bill gives the council the "power and duty to conduct oversight of the expenditure of public money and the delivery of municipal services", but provides no vehicle for that oversight and even provides a specific restraint on what they can do. To me, the council gains no more power and can no more effectively guarantee accountability or effective government.

-Alderman Israel supports this bill because it weakens the Mayor; Mayor Moyer opposes this bill because it weakens the Mayor; but in actuality, the bill does not create a weak mayor. The Mayor is still the direct supervisor of the city administrator, but it prohibits her from directing the work of the directors. The Mayor's power is reduced (good) but is not given to anyone else (bad)--it's like saying "you are no longer responsible for daily operations, but you are the supervisor of the person who is responsible. And, if he screws up, we are going to hold you accountable, even though you can't affect the things we are holding you accountable for". Talk about a mixed message--even I'm confused.

-The bill provides no more incentive to be a good alderman. A support staff is not enough. Provisions should be made for office space and salary increases.

If you are going to have a strong Mayor, you cannot prohibit her from directing the departments. If you are going to have a weak Mayor, she cannot be involved at all in operations, and the city council must hire and fire the city manager (or administrator). In between solves nothing, and this bill is in between.

Legislative City Council Meeting Tonight.....

...At 7:30 pm.

For the entire agenda, click here.

There are a couple of votes that interest me:

-A bill amending the protocol for replacing department directors.
-An ordinance to allow swimming in the city dock waters, which apparently, and curiously, has not been passed even though the triathlon already happened.
-A change in zoning to move something from ward 7 to ward 5.
-Waving fees for the Harry Potter festival. Seriously.

There are also a lot of bills on first reader that I am very interested in reading, and some of things they propose to do include:

-lease the city dock to a non-profit company apparently running some type of bicycle race--triathlon style but this time for a whole week
-have stiffer fines for littering
-limiting non-resident parking in certain districts
-specifying a lease for the open air market that I posted about 2 days ago
-formally praise John Patmore, who ironically was fired by the mayor and not yet replaced as far as I know
-recognize ANOTHER sister city

Looks like yours truly will be burning the midnight oil tonight. It's a good thing Mrs. Politics approves all of this.

City Council Meeting, 9/24

Operating under the ‘better late than never’ theory of blogging, I shall now present my summary of the city council meeting this past Monday.

Sadly, attendance and punctuality by the Republicans was spotty at best. Mike Christman was absent, and Dave Cordle was fashionably late. But in defense of Republicans, many of us have jobs for the purpose of making our own money (and not receiving a government handout that was pilfered from our fellow citizens), and on occasion there just isn’t enough time in the day!

The Mayor started off the meeting by taking a shot at The Capital, and then we got down to business.

Acting Directors
The first bill on the public hearing agenda was a charter amendment concerning the designation and compensation of acting directors. This amendment was introduced by Alderman Israel against the mayor’s wishes, and stipulates that a person serving as acting director of any department for more than 6 months requires express consent from the city council.

It was suggested to me that this should be called the “Malinoff’ amendment, named after Mike Malinoff, who, as I understand, served as an acting director for some years.

The problem is secrecy. If a department head position is open, the mayor may appoint an acting director and determine that acting director’s salary at her whim! Acting directors are typically hired as contract employees, so the normal procedures of city employment and checks and balances provided by the city council do not exist. Currently, this process can go on indefinitely! Mr. Israel’s bill makes a lot of sense, and improves the visibility of government. A concerned citizen offered his testimony saying as much, and was quickly challenged by the mayor. She asked why he was so concerned, and after he answered, she snidely retorted “you didn’t answer my question”. It was readily apparent, as usual, that the Mayor was determined to argue with anybody who disagreed with what she wants. The vote on this bill is upcoming.

Zu Coffee
Congratulations to Zu Coffee, who will be able to offer drive through service after passage of a bill amending permitted uses of drive through facilities. The bill passed despite objections from Alderman Arnett—first that the bill was a big fix for a small problem and secondly that drive-throughs are not environmentally friendly because they encourage cars to sit idly! Well Alderman Arnett, why not just ban cars altogether?!

In light of Alderman Arnett’s reservations, Alderman Israel motioned to postpone the bill--which had already taken months to get to this stage—after only 2 weeks ago promising the proprietor of said establishment that his rules committee would fast track its review of the bill.

The postponement motion was voted down, and oddly enough Aldermen Israel and Arnett (along with every other Alderman) voted for the bill.

Taxi Cab Rates
Folks, this is one to which you should pay attention. The way any bill works is this:

1. It is introduced for the first time: called first reader.
2. If the bill passes on first reader, it goes to the appropriate committees for review. It should be noted that nearly every bill passes on first reader as a political courtesy to the bill’s sponsor.
3. Next, the public has a chance to comment on the bill at its public hearing. Theoretically, the aldermen then consider the public’s input and deliberate as to how they are going to vote on the bill.
4. The bill comes up on second reader at the next legislative meeting, and is voted on again.
5. If the bill passes on second reader, it goes to third reader, which requires a roll call vote. Don’t ask me why we need a third reader, because I have no idea. If it were up to me, they would do a roll call on the second reader and be done with it. The third reader is always done at the same meeting, right after the second reader. It is very redundant.

Anyway, a bill to increase taxi cab rates was up for public hearing last night. But since nobody testified on the bill, the council voted to change the rules (that I just listed above) and moved the bill to legislative action right then and there! It passed on second and third reader and now we have higher cab rates!

This kind of stuff happens all the time, and if you don’t pay attention you might never know about it. It is very important to participate!

Non-Important things that happened.
The council resolved that September 29th is “Worldwide Day of Play” in Annapolis. Hooray.

Next meeting in 2 weeks—a legislative action meeting.

Paper or Plastic...We Still Haven't Decided?

If an alien from outer space were to have landed in Annapolis 1 month ago, they could send a report back to the Omicron Galaxy that elected officials on Earth govern by press releases and media quotes. This is because the city council does not meet in August.

But now we are in September, and actual meetings with agendas will take place. And certainly near the top of the agenda will be plastic bags.

To recap, AP's position on this issue is as follows:
-It is not clear whether plastic bags or paper bags are better for the environment.
-Reusable bags would be the best solution.
-This bill does not promote reusable bags, it just bans plastic bags.
-Banning plastic bags is, like, step Z, and we need to take steps A-Y. For example, private industry can work with government and citizens rather than argue with them. (Note: what I have just described is known as the Reverse of the Moyer Approach.)
-Litterers, not plastic bags, are the problem.

Let's use a letter to the editor of The Capital that had the misfortune of not being published. You can see letters that don't appear in the paper here.

I am writing in support of Sam Shropshire’s proposal to ban plastic bag distribution in Annapolis.

You are the only one.

I was thrilled that Annapolis could possibly lead the way in something environmentally inventive, since I usually read with envy about these ideas going on in California.

You sound like a west coast liberal. Although, I kinda' see what you are saying--the city council has spent their time on things that don't really matter, like Midshipman Owens, and you would like to see them lead the way in something relevant. What? You weren't' saying that? Oh well, I tried.

I have used canvas bags for shopping for years, and although I turn them down for small purchases, I still find it impressive how many plastic bags I end up with at home from newspapers, packaging and incidental purchases.

I once turned down a bag for a small purchase at 7-11, only to realize later that I needed somewhere to put my discarded banana peel. As it were, the banana peel remained and created a heck of a sanitation problem. It was embarrassing for everyone involved.

In an interview with a representative of a large grocery store chain, I found it disturbing that the fact that bags can be recycled into materials used to make benches was used as an argument to keep using them. The twisted logic misses the obvious point. The benches came out of desperation to find something to do with all of those bags that we generated.

First of all, the resins created by the recycled plastic bags are useful in a whole lot of things--not just benches.

Second of all, why you hatin' on supermarkets? ('Why you hatin' is slang for 'why do you have a negative attitude towards'. Doesn't it sound cooler?) If they found a way to recycle bags, and can even make money doing it (therefore perhaps hiring more workers or lowering prices), who are you to complain?

And C, benches are very useful. Have you ever needed to bend over to tie your shoe? Have you ever eaten a pretzel at the mall? If you answered yes to any of these questions, you win $1,000,000!! Just kidding--you know we need benches. Here is the list of the top 5 most underrated useful items:

1. an AAA membership
2. ice scraper for your car
3. benches
4. a cell phone case
5. this blog

Another argument raised was that by abandoning plastic bags, purchase and disposal of much thicker trash bag liners will rise, and they are more polluting and aren’t recycled but dumped.

Sounds reasonable (their argument--not your sentence). Point being that we can't possibly know all of the unintended consequences of this (or any other) proposed law.

Kitchen trash bags out of biodegradable materials are a wonderful alternative and already exist. We shouldn't be collecting wasteful plastic bags from stores just because they line our trash cans well. Similarly, I have known people who enjoy getting paper bags so they can neatly store their recycling. Generating trash to store trash doesn’t make sense.

You are right--biodegradable and reusable alternatives are awesome, but Mr. Shropshire's bill has nothing to do with this. It is merely a ban on plastic bags.

People are clever and bright. I refuse to believe this is the best we can do.
JULIE SHAY, Severna Park

I can't wait for September.

Is Annapolis Crazier Than Takoma Park?

A highly rated political blog called Maryland Politics (see link on side of page) recently chronicled a resolution by the town of Takoma Park, MD, which supported impeachment of President Bush and Vice-President Cheney. The city has a history of quirky resolutions, and scarily the citizens seem to be fully supportive.

I'm sure that you are thrilled, as I am, that Annapolis finally has a competitor in the race to pass meaningless resolutions! The City of Annapolis has a solid history of passing resolutions that apply to places they have no control over. Here is a summary of some of those things:

-Resolution supporting Midshipman Owens. Proper Jurisdiction: United States Navy.
-Resolution apologizing for slavery. Proper jurisdiction: the 1865 Congress of the Confederate States, perhaps.
-Supporting the Martin Luther King Institute of Non Violent Studies at Sojourner Douglass College. Proper jurisdiction: Board of Regents, Sojourner Douglass College.
-Inappropriate Ethical Behavior by Maryland Public Service Commission. Proper Jurisdiction: Maryland General Assembly or United States Supreme Court, I think. (I seem to remember that the supreme court has original jurisdiction when states are sued. But maybe not.)

You would think that the city has no problems of its own.

This is only the tip of the iceberg.. see for yourself...bring it on Takoma Park!