Surprise, surprise, surprise: I don't agree with some of columnist Bob Roegner's ideas in the Mirror, today. I believe the city doesn't need an administrator as Roegner and mayoral opponent Susan Honda do, because the mayor is the administrator in the so-called strong mayor form of government. If we're going to have an administrator, then there would have been little point in changing from the Council-manager form of government. However, I will do some research on what is the prevalence of administrators, overall, in the United States in so-called strong mayor systems. Moreover, if a mayor is somewhat clueless on how to run a city, then he or she needs a strong right-hand person in the mayoral office, with almost any title, that knows what he or she is doing.
Regarding council committees, I agree with Roegner that only Council committee members should be present on the dais, but if non-committee members want to watch the proceedings from a public vantage point, that's their constitutional right. I have no opinion, yet, about the formality of the committee proceedings since I have little to go on at this point. Roegner seems to think they should be more formal; I'm all for formality, generally, when it comes to government. Unfortunately, I have to read "Rogue-ner" on a regular basis, with all his flaws, to have the widest range of opinion regarding Federal Way government; after all, there are not a whole lot of people writing about it besides him, myself, and a handful of others. I also read him to keep a check on any misinformation about me.
Update (3/29/17): I did some research about city administrators, or if, in fact, there are any, in two cities: Seattle and Los Angeles. Los Angeles has one that goes by the title of city administrative officer, Richard H. Llewellyn, Jr. I can't find any indication that Seattle has a city administrator, but Los Angeles is much bigger than Seattle, so you would figure that the mayor there needs an administrator more than Seattle. I think a city the size of Federal Way doesn't need an administrator, but like I implied in the original essay about this subject, if a mayor thinks he needs someone of administrative caliber in his office, then he or she should definitely hire that person without, necessarily, any input from the Council.
Regarding council committees, I agree with Roegner that only Council committee members should be present on the dais, but if non-committee members want to watch the proceedings from a public vantage point, that's their constitutional right. I have no opinion, yet, about the formality of the committee proceedings since I have little to go on at this point. Roegner seems to think they should be more formal; I'm all for formality, generally, when it comes to government. Unfortunately, I have to read "Rogue-ner" on a regular basis, with all his flaws, to have the widest range of opinion regarding Federal Way government; after all, there are not a whole lot of people writing about it besides him, myself, and a handful of others. I also read him to keep a check on any misinformation about me.
Update (3/29/17): I did some research about city administrators, or if, in fact, there are any, in two cities: Seattle and Los Angeles. Los Angeles has one that goes by the title of city administrative officer, Richard H. Llewellyn, Jr. I can't find any indication that Seattle has a city administrator, but Los Angeles is much bigger than Seattle, so you would figure that the mayor there needs an administrator more than Seattle. I think a city the size of Federal Way doesn't need an administrator, but like I implied in the original essay about this subject, if a mayor thinks he needs someone of administrative caliber in his office, then he or she should definitely hire that person without, necessarily, any input from the Council.
-- Mark Greene (F.W. Exploratory Mayoral Committee)
[Updated and revised on March 29, 2017.]
[Updated and revised on March 29, 2017.]
Comments