However does it place too much power in the hands of an unelected bureaucracy? Does it infringe on the rights of minority members of the council?
This is a key point, because the council is in this model a legislative body whose members are the decision makers. Power is supposed to centralized in the elected council, which makes policy and approves the budget. The manager is appointed by council to carry out policy. If the manager is not responsive to the council’s wishes, the council has authority to terminate the manager at any time. In that sense, a manager’s responsiveness is tested daily. However, that responsiveness is only required of a majority of the council, because the minority lacks the power and numbers to vote to remove a city manager.
What we see in Davis are several problems that are a direct result of the structural system of government.
The councilmembers have no office space. This may seem like a small point, but the unelected city staff each have their own office space where they perform their work. If someone needs them, they can come see them or call them and leave a message. Now the city council has no such space. Space is power. If a city councilmember needs to meet with the staff, they must do so in the staff’s office. That provides the staff member with an advantage. The councilmember must seek out the staff member rather than vice versa. Imagine your boss having to come into your office rather than you having to go into your boss’ office. Imagine your boss having to seek you out rather than you having to seek them out. This displaces authority.
Along the same lines, the city staff is well paid whereas the city council is paid $500 per month. So again, the power is transferred away from the council who are treated as volunteers and towards the professional staff.
Moreover, the council shares staff resources—they are not allocated their own staffer. What that means is several things. First, the councilmembers do not have staff that is responsible and responsive only to them. Rather the staff is responsible to the city manager and their own department. Second, if you are a member of the council minority, the city staff has been non-responsive to council minority knowing that they do not hold control over who is hired and who is fired. What has happened is that minority members often do not get responses from staff and they then have to track them down. This is the opposite of what it should be.
As we saw with Councilmember Heystek’s proposed living wage ordinance, the council majority was able to prevent staff from working on that proposal. That meant that a city councilmember elected by the voters of Davis just as the council majority members are, had to on his own non-paid time, do the legwork needed to prepare the agenda item. That is a fundamental disenfranchisement of a sizable segment of the Davis of the population and that is a direct result of the council-manager system. Had Heystek had his own staff this would not have happened.
The question that now comes to mind is whether or not the city of Davis has ceded too much power to unelected staff members. Staff obviously serves at the pleasure of the council majority. And that means that staff reports—which again—the members rely on for the bulk of their information are tailored the needs and preferences of the council majority. The recommendations tend to take the side of the developers and the political establishment.
The council minority members are then forced to rely on these reports to make their decisions. We saw this play out fully when then Mayor Pro Tem Sue Greenwald took issue with the staff report estimating revenue from a proposed Target. She had to specifically go back through the report with staff to get them to re-figure their estimates based on different assumptions—one of those being the difference between Target and an alternative development on the same site as opposed to a vacant field—and when she went through those numbers at one point the staffer clarified that he did not agree with this assessment. Again, that’s a tremendous amount of power placed in the hands on a non-elected city staffer and at the expense of an elected public official.
So while it may be true that there are advantages to the council-manager style of city government, there are some severe drawbacks particularly in a sharply divided council whose divisions are rather bitter and divisive.
Davis should begin to ask the question as to whether or not this form of government serves its needs or whether we should go to a more professionalized city council. I would argue that we have gone too far and placed too much power in the unelected city staff. I think we pay our councilmembers far too little for the job that they do. Councilmembers basically have nearly a full time job and they are paid what amounts to a monthly stipend. Councilmembers should have their own staffer who can prepare reports and do research as they see fit. And councilmembers at the very least should have their own office space. In short, I think there are some severe shortcomings in this model that disadvantage elected councilmembers, particularly those in the minority.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
There are indeed potential abuses that are inherent in our current structure and an office,at least a funded part-time staffer for each council member and significant increase in pay are clearly necessary for a city of Davis’ size. Significant moneys,in part, could be found for this minimal cost by eliminating the wasteful consulting projects ,e.g. the Parks and Rec consulting proposal that the council majority will no doubt approve when taken up for reconsideration(it failed 2-2 with Amsmundson absent)in the near future. Currently, the real check to minority positions being ignored by staff is a combination of a strong, vocal minority public voice from the council dais and the vigorous grassroots populism that has served Davis so well in the past. When city staff is made aware of the political pulse of the Davis electorate, it attempts to balance this against the council majority pressure.
There are indeed potential abuses that are inherent in our current structure and an office,at least a funded part-time staffer for each council member and significant increase in pay are clearly necessary for a city of Davis’ size. Significant moneys,in part, could be found for this minimal cost by eliminating the wasteful consulting projects ,e.g. the Parks and Rec consulting proposal that the council majority will no doubt approve when taken up for reconsideration(it failed 2-2 with Amsmundson absent)in the near future. Currently, the real check to minority positions being ignored by staff is a combination of a strong, vocal minority public voice from the council dais and the vigorous grassroots populism that has served Davis so well in the past. When city staff is made aware of the political pulse of the Davis electorate, it attempts to balance this against the council majority pressure.
There are indeed potential abuses that are inherent in our current structure and an office,at least a funded part-time staffer for each council member and significant increase in pay are clearly necessary for a city of Davis’ size. Significant moneys,in part, could be found for this minimal cost by eliminating the wasteful consulting projects ,e.g. the Parks and Rec consulting proposal that the council majority will no doubt approve when taken up for reconsideration(it failed 2-2 with Amsmundson absent)in the near future. Currently, the real check to minority positions being ignored by staff is a combination of a strong, vocal minority public voice from the council dais and the vigorous grassroots populism that has served Davis so well in the past. When city staff is made aware of the political pulse of the Davis electorate, it attempts to balance this against the council majority pressure.
There are indeed potential abuses that are inherent in our current structure and an office,at least a funded part-time staffer for each council member and significant increase in pay are clearly necessary for a city of Davis’ size. Significant moneys,in part, could be found for this minimal cost by eliminating the wasteful consulting projects ,e.g. the Parks and Rec consulting proposal that the council majority will no doubt approve when taken up for reconsideration(it failed 2-2 with Amsmundson absent)in the near future. Currently, the real check to minority positions being ignored by staff is a combination of a strong, vocal minority public voice from the council dais and the vigorous grassroots populism that has served Davis so well in the past. When city staff is made aware of the political pulse of the Davis electorate, it attempts to balance this against the council majority pressure.
Correction… Parks and Rec consulting proposal failed 3-1. Saylor’s negative vote being a cynical manipulation of the system so that he could bring it up for reconsideration when Asmundson returned from her personal junket to the Phillipines.
Correction… Parks and Rec consulting proposal failed 3-1. Saylor’s negative vote being a cynical manipulation of the system so that he could bring it up for reconsideration when Asmundson returned from her personal junket to the Phillipines.
Correction… Parks and Rec consulting proposal failed 3-1. Saylor’s negative vote being a cynical manipulation of the system so that he could bring it up for reconsideration when Asmundson returned from her personal junket to the Phillipines.
Correction… Parks and Rec consulting proposal failed 3-1. Saylor’s negative vote being a cynical manipulation of the system so that he could bring it up for reconsideration when Asmundson returned from her personal junket to the Phillipines.
I suspect that most of staff time is spent on just keeping the place running and they have little time to engage in politics (other than maybe surviving through the different city council members that we elect). Other than the Fire Department and, in the recent election, the DPD, city staff have pretty much stayed out of elections.
The City Manager and staff need to be permanent career staff. The problem is not with the staff, but in the direction that they are given by the City Council (sometimes very conflicting direction). Davis has had this type of organization for decades and it has served us well.
I suspect that most of staff time is spent on just keeping the place running and they have little time to engage in politics (other than maybe surviving through the different city council members that we elect). Other than the Fire Department and, in the recent election, the DPD, city staff have pretty much stayed out of elections.
The City Manager and staff need to be permanent career staff. The problem is not with the staff, but in the direction that they are given by the City Council (sometimes very conflicting direction). Davis has had this type of organization for decades and it has served us well.
I suspect that most of staff time is spent on just keeping the place running and they have little time to engage in politics (other than maybe surviving through the different city council members that we elect). Other than the Fire Department and, in the recent election, the DPD, city staff have pretty much stayed out of elections.
The City Manager and staff need to be permanent career staff. The problem is not with the staff, but in the direction that they are given by the City Council (sometimes very conflicting direction). Davis has had this type of organization for decades and it has served us well.
I suspect that most of staff time is spent on just keeping the place running and they have little time to engage in politics (other than maybe surviving through the different city council members that we elect). Other than the Fire Department and, in the recent election, the DPD, city staff have pretty much stayed out of elections.
The City Manager and staff need to be permanent career staff. The problem is not with the staff, but in the direction that they are given by the City Council (sometimes very conflicting direction). Davis has had this type of organization for decades and it has served us well.
The recent council majority pressure to expand the scope of the General Plan “changes” beyond the housing element issue was rebuffed by our city staff. I believe that they were responding to the vigorous popular resistance to this council majority’s agenda so clearly demonstrated in the successful grassroots campaign against Measure X. City staff was pressured by the gang of four into working day and night to ram the Covell Village project through the process , a situation that severely eroded their morale. I applaud their resistance to the gang of three’s attemptts to pressure them this time. City staff knows that the current gang of three will soon pass from the scene and they are ultimately accountable to those who pay their salaries, the Davis voter.
The recent council majority pressure to expand the scope of the General Plan “changes” beyond the housing element issue was rebuffed by our city staff. I believe that they were responding to the vigorous popular resistance to this council majority’s agenda so clearly demonstrated in the successful grassroots campaign against Measure X. City staff was pressured by the gang of four into working day and night to ram the Covell Village project through the process , a situation that severely eroded their morale. I applaud their resistance to the gang of three’s attemptts to pressure them this time. City staff knows that the current gang of three will soon pass from the scene and they are ultimately accountable to those who pay their salaries, the Davis voter.
The recent council majority pressure to expand the scope of the General Plan “changes” beyond the housing element issue was rebuffed by our city staff. I believe that they were responding to the vigorous popular resistance to this council majority’s agenda so clearly demonstrated in the successful grassroots campaign against Measure X. City staff was pressured by the gang of four into working day and night to ram the Covell Village project through the process , a situation that severely eroded their morale. I applaud their resistance to the gang of three’s attemptts to pressure them this time. City staff knows that the current gang of three will soon pass from the scene and they are ultimately accountable to those who pay their salaries, the Davis voter.
The recent council majority pressure to expand the scope of the General Plan “changes” beyond the housing element issue was rebuffed by our city staff. I believe that they were responding to the vigorous popular resistance to this council majority’s agenda so clearly demonstrated in the successful grassroots campaign against Measure X. City staff was pressured by the gang of four into working day and night to ram the Covell Village project through the process , a situation that severely eroded their morale. I applaud their resistance to the gang of three’s attemptts to pressure them this time. City staff knows that the current gang of three will soon pass from the scene and they are ultimately accountable to those who pay their salaries, the Davis voter.
“I suspect that most of staff time is spent on just keeping the place running and they have little time to engage in politics “
I disagree, they have the very serious task of keeping their jobs, which means they must cator most of their analysis and reports to the wishes of the council majority or they risk being removed.
Now that serves the needs of the majority quite well. But because they are shared staff, the minority is hurt and hurt badly at least from what I’ve heard.
What I think would be an improvement is an arrangement closer to the county supervisors–each member with a paid salary and also a paid chief of staff.
“I suspect that most of staff time is spent on just keeping the place running and they have little time to engage in politics “
I disagree, they have the very serious task of keeping their jobs, which means they must cator most of their analysis and reports to the wishes of the council majority or they risk being removed.
Now that serves the needs of the majority quite well. But because they are shared staff, the minority is hurt and hurt badly at least from what I’ve heard.
What I think would be an improvement is an arrangement closer to the county supervisors–each member with a paid salary and also a paid chief of staff.
“I suspect that most of staff time is spent on just keeping the place running and they have little time to engage in politics “
I disagree, they have the very serious task of keeping their jobs, which means they must cator most of their analysis and reports to the wishes of the council majority or they risk being removed.
Now that serves the needs of the majority quite well. But because they are shared staff, the minority is hurt and hurt badly at least from what I’ve heard.
What I think would be an improvement is an arrangement closer to the county supervisors–each member with a paid salary and also a paid chief of staff.
“I suspect that most of staff time is spent on just keeping the place running and they have little time to engage in politics “
I disagree, they have the very serious task of keeping their jobs, which means they must cator most of their analysis and reports to the wishes of the council majority or they risk being removed.
Now that serves the needs of the majority quite well. But because they are shared staff, the minority is hurt and hurt badly at least from what I’ve heard.
What I think would be an improvement is an arrangement closer to the county supervisors–each member with a paid salary and also a paid chief of staff.
I have observed several issues with this form of city government
1. City Councils hire the staff, but tend to micromanage everything. Example, instructing a Parks and Rec staffer on what type of basketballs to buy. Lots of time is wasted by the overzealous Council members. Likewise too much time is wasted at CC meetings on stuff that should be processed by staff.
CC needs to step back and provide clear direction and empower staff to do thir jobs. They should manage on an exception basis.
2. Staff is afraid of CC council so every time there is anything controversial they bring in consultants to shield them from possible scorn. Consultants cost a lot of money and should be used sparingly.
3. City Manager turnover is very high and whenever a new city manager is hired he/she is given ahigh relocation/housing adjustment incentive. CC’s generally give away the incentives with little consideration that it drains funds that could be used for more productive purposes.
4. Too many staff seem to have the attitude that there is an endless supply of taxes. It is as if the tax payers exist to meet the needs of staff instead of the other way around.
I have observed several issues with this form of city government
1. City Councils hire the staff, but tend to micromanage everything. Example, instructing a Parks and Rec staffer on what type of basketballs to buy. Lots of time is wasted by the overzealous Council members. Likewise too much time is wasted at CC meetings on stuff that should be processed by staff.
CC needs to step back and provide clear direction and empower staff to do thir jobs. They should manage on an exception basis.
2. Staff is afraid of CC council so every time there is anything controversial they bring in consultants to shield them from possible scorn. Consultants cost a lot of money and should be used sparingly.
3. City Manager turnover is very high and whenever a new city manager is hired he/she is given ahigh relocation/housing adjustment incentive. CC’s generally give away the incentives with little consideration that it drains funds that could be used for more productive purposes.
4. Too many staff seem to have the attitude that there is an endless supply of taxes. It is as if the tax payers exist to meet the needs of staff instead of the other way around.
I have observed several issues with this form of city government
1. City Councils hire the staff, but tend to micromanage everything. Example, instructing a Parks and Rec staffer on what type of basketballs to buy. Lots of time is wasted by the overzealous Council members. Likewise too much time is wasted at CC meetings on stuff that should be processed by staff.
CC needs to step back and provide clear direction and empower staff to do thir jobs. They should manage on an exception basis.
2. Staff is afraid of CC council so every time there is anything controversial they bring in consultants to shield them from possible scorn. Consultants cost a lot of money and should be used sparingly.
3. City Manager turnover is very high and whenever a new city manager is hired he/she is given ahigh relocation/housing adjustment incentive. CC’s generally give away the incentives with little consideration that it drains funds that could be used for more productive purposes.
4. Too many staff seem to have the attitude that there is an endless supply of taxes. It is as if the tax payers exist to meet the needs of staff instead of the other way around.
I have observed several issues with this form of city government
1. City Councils hire the staff, but tend to micromanage everything. Example, instructing a Parks and Rec staffer on what type of basketballs to buy. Lots of time is wasted by the overzealous Council members. Likewise too much time is wasted at CC meetings on stuff that should be processed by staff.
CC needs to step back and provide clear direction and empower staff to do thir jobs. They should manage on an exception basis.
2. Staff is afraid of CC council so every time there is anything controversial they bring in consultants to shield them from possible scorn. Consultants cost a lot of money and should be used sparingly.
3. City Manager turnover is very high and whenever a new city manager is hired he/she is given ahigh relocation/housing adjustment incentive. CC’s generally give away the incentives with little consideration that it drains funds that could be used for more productive purposes.
4. Too many staff seem to have the attitude that there is an endless supply of taxes. It is as if the tax payers exist to meet the needs of staff instead of the other way around.
The Parks and Rec consultant proposal ,which will be supported by the council majority, is primarily to give the gang of three the political cover for an analysis which will, most likely, reneg on past council facility development promises. The “surrogate” citizen commission created by the council majority that will recommend the housing element portion of the General Plan is another example of
the council majority’s political spinelessness. It is worthwhile observing who on the council has the political courage to take transparent responsibility for their own analysis and decisions (Greenwald and Heystek), by rejecting the “surrogate” commission and Park and Rec consulting proposal, and who runs for cover behind needless consulting reports and hand-picked surrogates( Saylor, Souza and Asmundson).
The Parks and Rec consultant proposal ,which will be supported by the council majority, is primarily to give the gang of three the political cover for an analysis which will, most likely, reneg on past council facility development promises. The “surrogate” citizen commission created by the council majority that will recommend the housing element portion of the General Plan is another example of
the council majority’s political spinelessness. It is worthwhile observing who on the council has the political courage to take transparent responsibility for their own analysis and decisions (Greenwald and Heystek), by rejecting the “surrogate” commission and Park and Rec consulting proposal, and who runs for cover behind needless consulting reports and hand-picked surrogates( Saylor, Souza and Asmundson).
The Parks and Rec consultant proposal ,which will be supported by the council majority, is primarily to give the gang of three the political cover for an analysis which will, most likely, reneg on past council facility development promises. The “surrogate” citizen commission created by the council majority that will recommend the housing element portion of the General Plan is another example of
the council majority’s political spinelessness. It is worthwhile observing who on the council has the political courage to take transparent responsibility for their own analysis and decisions (Greenwald and Heystek), by rejecting the “surrogate” commission and Park and Rec consulting proposal, and who runs for cover behind needless consulting reports and hand-picked surrogates( Saylor, Souza and Asmundson).
The Parks and Rec consultant proposal ,which will be supported by the council majority, is primarily to give the gang of three the political cover for an analysis which will, most likely, reneg on past council facility development promises. The “surrogate” citizen commission created by the council majority that will recommend the housing element portion of the General Plan is another example of
the council majority’s political spinelessness. It is worthwhile observing who on the council has the political courage to take transparent responsibility for their own analysis and decisions (Greenwald and Heystek), by rejecting the “surrogate” commission and Park and Rec consulting proposal, and who runs for cover behind needless consulting reports and hand-picked surrogates( Saylor, Souza and Asmundson).