Is it time to consider changing our city government structure to a council/city manager.
OKC went to this years ago?
We would get continuity through administration changes, more accountibility in decisions and less questionable "deals".
quote:
Originally posted by deeray
Is it time to consider changing our city government structure to a council/city manager.
OKC went to this years ago?
We would get continuity through administration changes, more accountibility in decisions and less questionable "deals".
I don't know about the "deals". Those are always in the works. But I like the idea of a city manager that makes sure operational stuff gets done regardless of council/mayor changes. Flip flopping from one direction to the next is wasteful. He would provide continuity, especially if he is non partisan and required to have professional city management training.
What would be the role of the Mayor?
Didn't we already do this?
The Mayor is one of the council. Normally elected by the council. Could be a one year or possibly a 2 year term. The cities I have dealt with elected a new one yearly.
Since there is a professional City Manager handling the day to day management of the city departments....continutity would remain. So would accountability.
This manager should be over all groups including the Tulsa housing authority.
All of the council will always know what is going on. City Managers do not make major decisions on their own. They look for directions from the ENTIRE council.
We need a combined effort. Not a Mayor doing as they please.
quote:
Originally posted by deeray
The Mayor is one of the council. Normally elected by the council. Could be a one year or possibly a 2 year term. The cities I have dealt with elected a new one yearly.
Since there is a professional City Manager handling the day to day management of the city departments....continutity would remain. So would accountability.
This manager should be over all groups including the Tulsa housing authority.
All of the council will always know what is going on. City Managers do not make major decisions on their own. They look for directions from the ENTIRE council.
We need a combined effort. Not a Mayor doing as they please.
And you think changing government will keep the Mayor out of influencing the City Manager?
It's not the style of government, it's the people steering the ship.
quote:
Originally posted by deeray
The Mayor is one of the council. Normally elected by the council. Could be a one year or possibly a 2 year term. The cities I have dealt with elected a new one yearly.
Since there is a professional City Manager handling the day to day management of the city departments....continutity would remain. So would accountability.
This manager should be over all groups including the Tulsa housing authority.
All of the council will always know what is going on. City Managers do not make major decisions on their own. They look for directions from the ENTIRE council.
We need a combined effort. Not a Mayor doing as they please.
That is the form of government we have here in Owasso.
Another good thing about it is the entire city will vote in an election for a councilor however they do have to live in the district they represent. It keeps ward politics from occurring like you are starting to get in Tulsa.
Yes, it was changed to the strong mayor/council.....Wrong decision. This needs to be revisited.
What we have now is a total disaster.
The Mayor is more or less a team leader or figure head ....the mayor does not make decisions on their own. It is voted on by the council.
Broken Arrow and OKC are also Council/ manager.
The Mayor is more or less a team leader or figure head ....the mayor does not make decisions on their own. It is voted on by the council.
Broken Arrow and OKC are also Council/ manager.
quote:
Originally posted by unreliablesource
quote:
Originally posted by deeray
The Mayor is one of the council. Normally elected by the council. Could be a one year or possibly a 2 year term. The cities I have dealt with elected a new one yearly.
Since there is a professional City Manager handling the day to day management of the city departments....continutity would remain. So would accountability.
This manager should be over all groups including the Tulsa housing authority.
All of the council will always know what is going on. City Managers do not make major decisions on their own. They look for directions from the ENTIRE council.
We need a combined effort. Not a Mayor doing as they please.
That is the form of government we have here in Owasso.
Another good thing about it is the entire city will vote in an election for a councilor however they do have to live in the district they represent. It keeps ward politics from occurring like you are starting to get in Tulsa.
You do the same in Tulsa right now.
I'd definitely like to reconsider the possibilities. The current system is broken.
Our Mayor has too much power. The rest is given off to the various Boards, Authorities and Commissions, leaving the Council with little to do.
A City Manager which re-coagulates many of the Authorities into the body would help, imo. I don't much like the 'figurehead Mayor'. The Mayor should be able to initiate, even lead actions with a majority of Council involved (not just an approval vote of a pre-packaged deal).
There are better ways, imo.
Here's once where 'like OKC' may fit.
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by deeray
The Mayor is one of the council. Normally elected by the council. Could be a one year or possibly a 2 year term. The cities I have dealt with elected a new one yearly.
Since there is a professional City Manager handling the day to day management of the city departments....continutity would remain. So would accountability.
This manager should be over all groups including the Tulsa housing authority.
All of the council will always know what is going on. City Managers do not make major decisions on their own. They look for directions from the ENTIRE council.
We need a combined effort. Not a Mayor doing as they please.
And you think changing government will keep the Mayor out of influencing the City Manager?
It's not the style of government, it's the people steering the ship.
The people steering never change personalities. Its the design of the ship I'm afraid. By dissipating the influence and power of the mayor, and redesigning the work flow of all the parties, this city might escape the stranglehold of contrarian interests. Like Wrinkle says, its the boards and authorities that need managing.
My concern with the change would be a lack of leadership with a weakened mayor. Although OKC seemed to find it in Cornett and others. Good managers are not necessarily good leaders.
quote:
Originally posted by deeray
The Mayor is one of the council. Normally elected by the council.
no thats not always the case. maybe in smaller cities. but in OKC the mayor is elected by the people. Over in Fayetteville they mayor is elected and gets to serve as the tie breaker on city council. it is a great way to run a city.
and if you do this, you could distribute the mayor salary and give all the councilors a raise. Hell, if you get rid of the mayor's cabinet you could probably distribute all that money to the councilors and get that size raise that Henderson was wanting....but I'd want the councilors doing a LOT more than they do now.
and BTW, I already mentioned this in the who's running for mayor thread. If you will run with the platform I described there I will vote for you.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by deeray
The Mayor is one of the council. Normally elected by the council.
no thats not always the case. maybe in smaller cities. but in OKC the mayor is elected by the people. Over in Fayetteville they mayor is elected and gets to serve as the tie breaker on city council. it is a great way to run a city.
and if you do this, you could distribute the mayor salary and give all the councilors a raise. Hell, if you get rid of the mayor's cabinet you could probably distribute all that money to the councilors and get that size raise that Henderson was wanting....but I'd want the councilors doing a LOT more than they do now.
and BTW, I already mentioned this in the who's running for mayor thread. If you will run with the platform I described there I will vote for you.
If you're soliciting for who you're going to vote for based on the platform they'd run, you'd do better to run yourself...
....hey, actually...
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by deeray
The Mayor is one of the council. Normally elected by the council.
no thats not always the case. maybe in smaller cities. but in OKC the mayor is elected by the people. Over in Fayetteville they mayor is elected and gets to serve as the tie breaker on city council. it is a great way to run a city.
and if you do this, you could distribute the mayor salary and give all the councilors a raise. Hell, if you get rid of the mayor's cabinet you could probably distribute all that money to the councilors and get that size raise that Henderson was wanting....but I'd want the councilors doing a LOT more than they do now.
and BTW, I already mentioned this in the who's running for mayor thread. If you will run with the platform I described there I will vote for you.
If you're soliciting for who you're going to vote for based on the platform they'd run, you'd do better to run yourself...
....hey, actually...
i think if you submit a platform that has a lot of support, someone will run on it.
Soon 20 years will pass since again the voters will be programmed for a government change.
I thought that Charley was the city manager.
Taylor is the queen bee who chose her pet agendas for Charley. (She points to Charles and says that is what you want which would be the same as by name of city manager.)
I think that among the citizens that submit to authority there could be someone not too stupid to be a city manager. (Instead maybe we should look to Germany to find a city leader)
Seems that big brother said electing councilors city wide eliminated the voice of the minority. (The minority in Tulsa is increasing to where estimated in the 2040's or before they will be in the majority)
Once under the mayor/city manager the mayor's duties was to kiss the babies. (Now I can't see who kisses who but I see a lot of a$$ kissing going on.)
We have tried to change to a Metro government. (But the constitution of Oklahoma had to be changed so that was shot down.)
The sales pitch for the change from the commission/mayor was it would save money, thus reduce taxes. (Like buying real-estate behind the dikes in New Orleans)
Yes, I am one on those who made an attempt to require the change of city government be clarified on the ballot. (It was compared to a school consolidation election in 1924 by the court)
Happy landings on the change of city government and be sure you wear two pair of pants as it protects your seat when you are thrown out of court.
so are you for or against a city manager form of government?
oh and one other thing (//%22http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBCos2MlQ1Y%22)
k thx
I am for a government of the people but as history records all the attempts to let the people govern themselves have failed. Such governments regardless of all efforts, become as the Ghostly Galleon tossed on a cloudy sea. The generations of the past, once they have gained controlled, to unseat them is an impossible task.
For a city manager type of government in Tulsa it would require the importing of a independent person. Who would select such a person?
Singapore is rated as the most intelligent, holding the number one spot. The language of China is spoken by 24% the occupants of the planet. Maybe we should look to them to hire a city manager.
We have started three wars to enforce our type of government on other nations. Two have been failures and we are in a struggle to install an exiled government at cost of more lives today.
Past history points to the monarch type of government, with sole powers to be managers whether city or country.
Athens and Rome both tried to govern themselves and they failed. Can we correct their failures or is it better to hire a intelligent person to govern us? Who do you think should choose such person?