SHOULD WE REPLACE A PAID CITY MANAGER WITH A FULL TIME PAID MAYOR?
On Wednesday I will deal with amending the City Charter to define when a person qualifies to have a building or street named after themselves.
Today’s post is a simple issue. Should we amend the City Charter to change our form of government from a city manager to a mayor who manages the city. And if so, would you support paying the mayor a wage as a full time mayor who manages the city instead of a city manager? Currently, unlike County Judge Cascos, the mayor manages nothing. The question effectively is, would you support eliminating the position of city manager in exchange for a full time paid mayor?
3 comments:
Yes I say have a full time Mayor and get ride of the City Manager that will be one yes vote gone.
The mayor should not sit on any committee or be a board member as this will cause a conflict of interest.
The package should be spellt out before he or she is sworn in as not to cause any arguments after about perks
A huge advantage to this scenario is that a bad one goes away in 4 years without a golden parachute.
This would be unlike the way that ugly, nasty, school superintendents get the mink covered boot.
Having a professional city manager is in the best interest of this community. We could consider a change to a "stong mayor" system where the mayor has some powers to direct and manage the city. Having a professional, well educated city manager will be important for development in the future....while mayors will come and go.
Post a Comment