A proposed change to the city’s charter giving the City Council more power over the city manager’s hiring decisions fizzled out Monday night, but not without first attracting some of the usual suspects of city activists.
The motion would have asked voters yet another question on the April ballot about changing the city’s charter. This one would have given the council yay or nay authority over department heads hired by the city manager, a substantial change to a city government based on an independent city administration whose manager serves at the pleasure of an elected council.
The issue was withdrawn after a failed vote to table it at a meeting missing both Mayor Darwin Hindman and Fifth Ward Councilwoman Laura Nauser. Last night was the final night to add items to the April ballot.
Third Ward Councilman Karl Skala, who technically is responsible for the issue’s presence on the agenda, said he wasn’t trying to get the issue on the ballot.
“I tried to make it as clear as possible when I asked for a draft ordinance that it was for creating a public discourse on the issues we’re hearing tonight,” he said. “I never intended to try to get this on the April ballot.”
But Skala did want a public discussion on the issue and asked to table it so the absent council members could weigh in at the next meeting. However, the ordinance would have been moot procedurally, so the other members, except for Sixth Ward Councilwoman Barbara Hoppe, saw no point to table it. Skala subsequently made a motion to withdraw it, which passed unanimously.
But something of a public discussion did occur, drawing out the likes of former mayoral candidate John Clark, citizen journalist Mike Martin, and activist and Visioning Commission Chair Dan Goldstein.
While signaling opposition to the ordinance as worded, Clark said the “council has been reduced to a rubber stamp,” and that the balance between it and the city administration needed to be addressed.
Martin, a frequent critic of Columbia government, echoed those concerns, saying Columbia had “a big imbalance of power.” Goldstein pointed to sections of the Visioning report calling for increased transparency and accountability from the city staff to the council and the public.
Wade cautioned against changing one piece of an existing structure. Skala said more discussion was needed, though he has privately voiced concerns about the gulf between the city staff and council authority. He compared the proposed process to the U.S. Senate approving presidential nominations.
After giving a short history lesson on the origins of the council-manager form of government, Wade said a more apt comparison was between the board and CEO of a public company. That structure has drawn criticism over the past few years in the corporate world, with shareholders lobbying for more say over how a company is run.
Hoppe suggested the public and council should be more involved in the candidate selection process, but stopped short of endorsing the ordinance.
“When we’re totally shut out of the candidate selection process… I don’t have any basis for deciding whether the city manager did a good job or not,” she said.
So the council opted for more discussion, with First Ward Candidate Paul Sturtz suggesting the issue be studied by a task force or perhaps referred to another city commission. He asked that the council take it up at a work session. Expect more talk soon.
Categories: City Politics.
Love the article — very complete, and definitely best in breed on the issue of this council meeting. But I hate this hackneyed reference:
“…usual suspects of city activists.”
As Mr. Barker is a former Missourian reporter, I’m sorry the Missourian continues to push this derisive and unfortunate stereotype. I see it applied with smug surety all too often in both local newspapers.
The city activists here — including myself — do important work no reporters seem willing or capable of doing.
We dig for buried information, we reveal important conflicts and corrupting influences, and we keep local government honest, often against an onslaught of negativity by the establishment status quo — and for reasons I still cannot understand after 13 years in this community, many local newspaper reporters and their editors.
For instance, if you had read “usual suspect” John Clark’s handout, you’d realize that he offered a cogent, well-constructed, thoughtful alternative to the ordinance Mr. Boeckmann had prematurely placed before the council that evening.
If the Missourian’s senior editorial staff would get out more (go to more meetings, actually press the flesh instead of pontificating from on high) they’d see how fallacious and irresponsible is this negative stereotype of citizen activists.
I’m a professional science journalist, btw, not a “citizen journalist,” though if you wanted to refer to me as the Citizen Journalist columnist at the Columbia Business Times for the past two years, I’d certainly appreciate that designation.