Whether the mayor or the city manager was correct in this exchange, one of the important things that this incident reveals is where the power resides–and it is not with an elected official such as the Mayor. Rather it is the unelected City Manager.
A few weeks ago, the issue arose where the question was asked who had the power to write the agenda. My understanding is that the procedure is generally for the city manager to write the agenda in consultation with the mayor. In practice however it seems that the city manager writes the agenda and anytime he and the mayor disagree, he says that this is what the council majority wants.
At times it is not even clear that the city manager was getting his direction from the council majority. For example there was a long range budget workshop. The mayor wanted this workshop televised, as it took place in the council chambers, and yet purportedly the city manager was insistent that the council majority had wanted no television. And yet, when I actually spoke to a number of members of the council majority, they had no idea that such a decision had been made.
So what happened? It is far from clear, but it seems possible that the city manager made the decision on his own and when confronted simply assumed that the council majority would disagree.
Worse yet is that there seems that the mayor has little recourse other than to bring the issues forward in public–and if the mayor does that, she would inevitably lose more often than not.
Formally however, it would appear the presiding officer under Rosenberg’s Rules would have much greater latitude:
If the Council Ground Rules is the authorizing document, the presiding officer would be responsible for preparing the agenda. There may be a more fleshed out version however that more fully explains this power. But using this right now as the document, I do not think the city manager is in compliance.
In practice it seems that the mayor does not have the power to agendize items at her discretion. This is in part a function of the city manager model. It is also in part a function of this being a minority mayor. However, at least according to the ground rules, this is not a formal arrangement of power.
The question I pose though is who should really have such powers to determine the items on the agenda–the elected mayor and elected body of the city council or the unelected staff and city manager?
We see this issue arise time and time again. For example at this past meeting, there was a proclamation to award PG&E recognition for their generous $10,000 contribution to the Street Smarts program. The proclamation read signed by Mayor Sue Greenwald. And yet in actuality, it was written by a member of the staff who obtained an agreement with PG&E in order to secure their donation. Did council have a say in this matter? No.
At the recent swearing in ceremony of the new police Chief Landy Black, we saw the city manager rather than the Mayor conduct the ceremony. A number of people who witnessed this event asked why the city manager was doing this? It is a small issue to be sure, but it is illustrative of just who has the power. Generally ceremonial tasks such as these, even in a weak mayoral system, fall to elected officials rather than city staff. That’s part of the few actual powers that the mayor ought to have in such a system. I’ve never seen a city manager perform such tasks.
As I have mentioned on this blog many times, I also think it is problematic that the city council does not have their own staff. This means they must rely on the guidance and counsel of staff that has no direct ties or loyalty to them. This too becomes very problematic at times, especially for members who are in the minority on council.
There have also been several points when city staff has failed to properly advise and council the mayor and city council on public matters. Two such incidents come to mind–again both of these in and of themselves are minor things, but they are illustrative of the broader issue and problem.
At the Police Chief Landy Black swearing-in ceremony, the Mayor made some introductions of elected officials–which is a traditional courtesy at such public events. However, the mayor herself had to walk around and figure out who was there. This was clearly a job that staff should have done. This should have fallen to deputy city manager Kelly Stachowicz who was in attendance. Moreover, there were six visiting police chiefs from other jurisdictions at this event and no one informed the mayor so that she could introduce them on behalf of the city. This is staff’s job. The mayor was not properly staffed. An elected official cannot be responsible for figuring out who is in attendance, that is what staff is there for. The staff should have ensured that these dignitaries were properly recognized officially by the city.
On a related note at the recent city council meeting this past Tuesday evening, the new Police Chief Landy Black was in attendance for the first time, officially as the Police Chief. Yet, somehow staff did not think to let the Mayor know that she ought to formally introduce him to the community as Police Chief. Moreover, not one councilmember thought to introduce Chief Black to the community at the meeting.
These types of errors are minor, but they are a bit embarrassing for the city.
This leads me back to my concern about ability for councilmembers to place items on the agenda. Councilmembers can request items on the agenda. The council can actually prevent these items from coming on the agenda. Informally so too can the city manager. What this means is that those in the council minority do not have the full ability to agendize items with staff support and preparation. Often they have had to place items on as city councilmember items–which means they must prepare and staff themselves. A portion of the Davis community who voted for these members is essentially somewhat disenfranchised because their elected representatives lack the ability to place items on the agenda.
While I understand that cities the size of Davis invariably use a city manager model of government which is a very weak mayoral system. It seems that more power is vested with staff than most cities I have seen. It seems that the mayor has very little power to create an agenda and even under the council handbook listed on the city’s webpage, the Mayor ought to have more power to do so. Unfortunately, as a member of the council minority, it seems that the Mayor has little recourse other than to make a statement in public acknowledging her dissatisfaction with the current arrangement.
My question remains who should have the power, the elected council or the unelected staff? My position remains that wherever possible, the elected council who must face the voters should retain the power and direct staff to achieve their ends. Perhaps this is what is happening, but if it is, it is not happening in the public light and that is where these decisions need to take place.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
The Council majority is happy to let Bill Emlen “take the heat” for their strategy to make Mayor Greenwald irrelevant. Mayor Greenwald needs to assert her perogatives more forcefully from the dais and City Manager Emlen should be wary of complicity in this plan. As has been recently demonstrated, City Managers are emminently expendable.
The Council majority is happy to let Bill Emlen “take the heat” for their strategy to make Mayor Greenwald irrelevant. Mayor Greenwald needs to assert her perogatives more forcefully from the dais and City Manager Emlen should be wary of complicity in this plan. As has been recently demonstrated, City Managers are emminently expendable.
The Council majority is happy to let Bill Emlen “take the heat” for their strategy to make Mayor Greenwald irrelevant. Mayor Greenwald needs to assert her perogatives more forcefully from the dais and City Manager Emlen should be wary of complicity in this plan. As has been recently demonstrated, City Managers are emminently expendable.
The Council majority is happy to let Bill Emlen “take the heat” for their strategy to make Mayor Greenwald irrelevant. Mayor Greenwald needs to assert her perogatives more forcefully from the dais and City Manager Emlen should be wary of complicity in this plan. As has been recently demonstrated, City Managers are emminently expendable.
I don’t envy any Davis city manager.
I don’t envy any Davis city manager.
I don’t envy any Davis city manager.
I don’t envy any Davis city manager.
“The question I pose though is who should really have such powers to determine the items on the agenda–the elected mayor and elected body of the city council or the unelected staff and city manager?”
In my opinion, the most important change we need to make, as long as we don’t have a directly elected mayor, is to allow the council itself to choose who the mayor should be. It is completely stupid to have a minority-faction mayor, just as it would be stupid to have a Dennis Hastert or a Tom DeLay serving as Speaker of the House with a Democratic majority. The majority of any elected legislative body ought to have the right to pick its own leaders.
Once that change is made, we should — as your quote from the Rosenberg Rules suggests — allow the mayor (in consultation with her council colleagues) write the agenda. She should have the right to consult with the staff, but they should have no veto whatsoever over what the agenda says.
If a mayor were then non-responsive to the requests of other council members, regarding the agenda or regarding other aspects of her leadership, a majority could depose her and select a new mayor.
For the most part, I think the mayor ought to remain a largely ceremonial title. However, the one aspect of that title that is important ought to be in running the meetings — and that, necessarily, includes the ability to set the agenda.
One more thing I would add: if a mayor were terribly partisan — that is, she only allowed agenda items to be discussed which favored her faction — I think the voters would ultimately hold that against the mayor and her side; and it might even cause someone on the majority to switch sides and choose a new mayor from among the other four. As such, a mayor, in control of the agenda, would have some incentive to be cooperative with all of her colleagues, up to a point.
It seems that the mayor has very little power to create an agenda and even under the council handbook listed on the city’s webpage, the Mayor ought to have more power to do so.
“The question I pose though is who should really have such powers to determine the items on the agenda–the elected mayor and elected body of the city council or the unelected staff and city manager?”
In my opinion, the most important change we need to make, as long as we don’t have a directly elected mayor, is to allow the council itself to choose who the mayor should be. It is completely stupid to have a minority-faction mayor, just as it would be stupid to have a Dennis Hastert or a Tom DeLay serving as Speaker of the House with a Democratic majority. The majority of any elected legislative body ought to have the right to pick its own leaders.
Once that change is made, we should — as your quote from the Rosenberg Rules suggests — allow the mayor (in consultation with her council colleagues) write the agenda. She should have the right to consult with the staff, but they should have no veto whatsoever over what the agenda says.
If a mayor were then non-responsive to the requests of other council members, regarding the agenda or regarding other aspects of her leadership, a majority could depose her and select a new mayor.
For the most part, I think the mayor ought to remain a largely ceremonial title. However, the one aspect of that title that is important ought to be in running the meetings — and that, necessarily, includes the ability to set the agenda.
One more thing I would add: if a mayor were terribly partisan — that is, she only allowed agenda items to be discussed which favored her faction — I think the voters would ultimately hold that against the mayor and her side; and it might even cause someone on the majority to switch sides and choose a new mayor from among the other four. As such, a mayor, in control of the agenda, would have some incentive to be cooperative with all of her colleagues, up to a point.
It seems that the mayor has very little power to create an agenda and even under the council handbook listed on the city’s webpage, the Mayor ought to have more power to do so.
“The question I pose though is who should really have such powers to determine the items on the agenda–the elected mayor and elected body of the city council or the unelected staff and city manager?”
In my opinion, the most important change we need to make, as long as we don’t have a directly elected mayor, is to allow the council itself to choose who the mayor should be. It is completely stupid to have a minority-faction mayor, just as it would be stupid to have a Dennis Hastert or a Tom DeLay serving as Speaker of the House with a Democratic majority. The majority of any elected legislative body ought to have the right to pick its own leaders.
Once that change is made, we should — as your quote from the Rosenberg Rules suggests — allow the mayor (in consultation with her council colleagues) write the agenda. She should have the right to consult with the staff, but they should have no veto whatsoever over what the agenda says.
If a mayor were then non-responsive to the requests of other council members, regarding the agenda or regarding other aspects of her leadership, a majority could depose her and select a new mayor.
For the most part, I think the mayor ought to remain a largely ceremonial title. However, the one aspect of that title that is important ought to be in running the meetings — and that, necessarily, includes the ability to set the agenda.
One more thing I would add: if a mayor were terribly partisan — that is, she only allowed agenda items to be discussed which favored her faction — I think the voters would ultimately hold that against the mayor and her side; and it might even cause someone on the majority to switch sides and choose a new mayor from among the other four. As such, a mayor, in control of the agenda, would have some incentive to be cooperative with all of her colleagues, up to a point.
It seems that the mayor has very little power to create an agenda and even under the council handbook listed on the city’s webpage, the Mayor ought to have more power to do so.
“The question I pose though is who should really have such powers to determine the items on the agenda–the elected mayor and elected body of the city council or the unelected staff and city manager?”
In my opinion, the most important change we need to make, as long as we don’t have a directly elected mayor, is to allow the council itself to choose who the mayor should be. It is completely stupid to have a minority-faction mayor, just as it would be stupid to have a Dennis Hastert or a Tom DeLay serving as Speaker of the House with a Democratic majority. The majority of any elected legislative body ought to have the right to pick its own leaders.
Once that change is made, we should — as your quote from the Rosenberg Rules suggests — allow the mayor (in consultation with her council colleagues) write the agenda. She should have the right to consult with the staff, but they should have no veto whatsoever over what the agenda says.
If a mayor were then non-responsive to the requests of other council members, regarding the agenda or regarding other aspects of her leadership, a majority could depose her and select a new mayor.
For the most part, I think the mayor ought to remain a largely ceremonial title. However, the one aspect of that title that is important ought to be in running the meetings — and that, necessarily, includes the ability to set the agenda.
One more thing I would add: if a mayor were terribly partisan — that is, she only allowed agenda items to be discussed which favored her faction — I think the voters would ultimately hold that against the mayor and her side; and it might even cause someone on the majority to switch sides and choose a new mayor from among the other four. As such, a mayor, in control of the agenda, would have some incentive to be cooperative with all of her colleagues, up to a point.
It seems that the mayor has very little power to create an agenda and even under the council handbook listed on the city’s webpage, the Mayor ought to have more power to do so.
i think we’d be better off with a directly elected mayor and the rest of the city council elected by district. at least then the city would have a mayor that was the majority choice (instead of the usual 10-20%), and thus would have more legitimacy to make citywide decisions instead of an unelected city manager.
as this would take a city charter to do, i don’t expect it’d happen anytime soon, if ever. my two cents, FWIW.
i think we’d be better off with a directly elected mayor and the rest of the city council elected by district. at least then the city would have a mayor that was the majority choice (instead of the usual 10-20%), and thus would have more legitimacy to make citywide decisions instead of an unelected city manager.
as this would take a city charter to do, i don’t expect it’d happen anytime soon, if ever. my two cents, FWIW.
i think we’d be better off with a directly elected mayor and the rest of the city council elected by district. at least then the city would have a mayor that was the majority choice (instead of the usual 10-20%), and thus would have more legitimacy to make citywide decisions instead of an unelected city manager.
as this would take a city charter to do, i don’t expect it’d happen anytime soon, if ever. my two cents, FWIW.
i think we’d be better off with a directly elected mayor and the rest of the city council elected by district. at least then the city would have a mayor that was the majority choice (instead of the usual 10-20%), and thus would have more legitimacy to make citywide decisions instead of an unelected city manager.
as this would take a city charter to do, i don’t expect it’d happen anytime soon, if ever. my two cents, FWIW.
The voters did not elect Emlen and I wish he would let the Mayor do her job.
He runs his staff the same way. Staff that oversee city commissions attempt to take over and set the agenda instead of allowing the Chair and the commissions set the agenda. Now we know where it’s coming from thanks to the Vanguard.
The voters did not elect Emlen and I wish he would let the Mayor do her job.
He runs his staff the same way. Staff that oversee city commissions attempt to take over and set the agenda instead of allowing the Chair and the commissions set the agenda. Now we know where it’s coming from thanks to the Vanguard.
The voters did not elect Emlen and I wish he would let the Mayor do her job.
He runs his staff the same way. Staff that oversee city commissions attempt to take over and set the agenda instead of allowing the Chair and the commissions set the agenda. Now we know where it’s coming from thanks to the Vanguard.
The voters did not elect Emlen and I wish he would let the Mayor do her job.
He runs his staff the same way. Staff that oversee city commissions attempt to take over and set the agenda instead of allowing the Chair and the commissions set the agenda. Now we know where it’s coming from thanks to the Vanguard.
“Staff that oversee city commissions attempt to take over and set the agenda instead of allowing the Chair and the commissions set the agenda.”
City commissioners were not elected, either. Like the city manager, who was hired by the city council, this council in fact, commissioners (including myself) were just appointed.
Nonetheless, depending on the nature of each commission, you may have a good point about allowing chairpersons to set their agendas. I think that could be good, as long as the commissioners understood that they are there only to advise and aid, but not lord over, the elected city council.
“Staff that oversee city commissions attempt to take over and set the agenda instead of allowing the Chair and the commissions set the agenda.”
City commissioners were not elected, either. Like the city manager, who was hired by the city council, this council in fact, commissioners (including myself) were just appointed.
Nonetheless, depending on the nature of each commission, you may have a good point about allowing chairpersons to set their agendas. I think that could be good, as long as the commissioners understood that they are there only to advise and aid, but not lord over, the elected city council.
“Staff that oversee city commissions attempt to take over and set the agenda instead of allowing the Chair and the commissions set the agenda.”
City commissioners were not elected, either. Like the city manager, who was hired by the city council, this council in fact, commissioners (including myself) were just appointed.
Nonetheless, depending on the nature of each commission, you may have a good point about allowing chairpersons to set their agendas. I think that could be good, as long as the commissioners understood that they are there only to advise and aid, but not lord over, the elected city council.
“Staff that oversee city commissions attempt to take over and set the agenda instead of allowing the Chair and the commissions set the agenda.”
City commissioners were not elected, either. Like the city manager, who was hired by the city council, this council in fact, commissioners (including myself) were just appointed.
Nonetheless, depending on the nature of each commission, you may have a good point about allowing chairpersons to set their agendas. I think that could be good, as long as the commissioners understood that they are there only to advise and aid, but not lord over, the elected city council.
Could this be the Peters Principle in action? In a bureaucracy, people rise to the level of their incompetence. Emlen may have been an effective Planning Department Director but City Manager requires strong “people” skills, especially in Davis.
Could this be the Peters Principle in action? In a bureaucracy, people rise to the level of their incompetence. Emlen may have been an effective Planning Department Director but City Manager requires strong “people” skills, especially in Davis.
Could this be the Peters Principle in action? In a bureaucracy, people rise to the level of their incompetence. Emlen may have been an effective Planning Department Director but City Manager requires strong “people” skills, especially in Davis.
Could this be the Peters Principle in action? In a bureaucracy, people rise to the level of their incompetence. Emlen may have been an effective Planning Department Director but City Manager requires strong “people” skills, especially in Davis.
The mayor should have directed staff about what she wanted prior to the swearing in ceremony. She can’t merely show up to these things and expect the staff to know her mind. She could have asked staff at the ceremony to gather up the list for her so she didn’t have to walk around doing so herself.
The mayor should resolve her problems with the agenda outside of the meeting. Doing it during the meeting makes her look incompetent as a leader and does give the impression that she is not in charge.
The mayor should have directed staff about what she wanted prior to the swearing in ceremony. She can’t merely show up to these things and expect the staff to know her mind. She could have asked staff at the ceremony to gather up the list for her so she didn’t have to walk around doing so herself.
The mayor should resolve her problems with the agenda outside of the meeting. Doing it during the meeting makes her look incompetent as a leader and does give the impression that she is not in charge.
The mayor should have directed staff about what she wanted prior to the swearing in ceremony. She can’t merely show up to these things and expect the staff to know her mind. She could have asked staff at the ceremony to gather up the list for her so she didn’t have to walk around doing so herself.
The mayor should resolve her problems with the agenda outside of the meeting. Doing it during the meeting makes her look incompetent as a leader and does give the impression that she is not in charge.
The mayor should have directed staff about what she wanted prior to the swearing in ceremony. She can’t merely show up to these things and expect the staff to know her mind. She could have asked staff at the ceremony to gather up the list for her so she didn’t have to walk around doing so herself.
The mayor should resolve her problems with the agenda outside of the meeting. Doing it during the meeting makes her look incompetent as a leader and does give the impression that she is not in charge.
if the mayor didn’t take the time to figure out who would be at the swearing in — why isn’t she to blame?
if the mayor didn’t take the time to figure out who would be at the swearing in — why isn’t she to blame?
if the mayor didn’t take the time to figure out who would be at the swearing in — why isn’t she to blame?
if the mayor didn’t take the time to figure out who would be at the swearing in — why isn’t she to blame?
That’s generally the job of staff to perform those kinds of tasks, or at least that has been the way it has worked in all the other jurisdictions I have been involved in.
That’s generally the job of staff to perform those kinds of tasks, or at least that has been the way it has worked in all the other jurisdictions I have been involved in.
That’s generally the job of staff to perform those kinds of tasks, or at least that has been the way it has worked in all the other jurisdictions I have been involved in.
That’s generally the job of staff to perform those kinds of tasks, or at least that has been the way it has worked in all the other jurisdictions I have been involved in.