Second-term Democratic city Councilor Kevin McCauley said he's against the proposal to create a pseudo-city manager.Moreover, McCauley said, he won't support bringing the issue to a public vote.
McCauley said he favored looking into the idea of having a city manager, but isn't satisfied with what the Charter Revision Commission found.
He said that the new post would cost a substantial amount for salary and benefits, plus there would surely be a need for administrative support as well.
McCauley said that the chief operating office is largely the same as a city manager. The difference "is pretty much semantics," he said. He said that he believes the city's current structure, which relies on elected officials to set policy and a Board of Finance to keep a lid on spending, is working well.
McCauley said he can see the argument for greater continuity at the helm, but extending the mayor's term from two years to four years would suffice to provide it.
McCauley said he's also dissatisfied with the educational and experience requirements the charter panel set for the job. He called them "a little too basic to truly get the qualified individual that the proponents would want."
He said that he likes giving the people the power to pick the city's leaders, or get rid of them.
McCauley said that he doesn't want to send the plan to the ballot because many residents wouldn't vote on it so the decision wouldn't reflect the community's true wishes.
"Right now, I'm probably more apt to vote it down" completely rather than agreeing to put it on the ballot, McCauley said.
For those keeping score:
For the chief operating officer - Cockayne, Minor
Opposed, but willing to let public decide - Ward
Opposed - Rimcoski, McCauley
Unknown - Nicastro, Block
It's looking iffier. I'm sure Nicastro will oppose the plan, but might be willing to put it on the ballot. Block could go either way.
*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com
22 comments:
Wonder if Nicastro willl use this as an opportunity to kiss up to Yarde by supporting Yardes fantasy?
Thanks McCauley.
All of them simple folk would have no idea what they are voting on anyway.
Good thing we have smart people like you at the helm to make all of our decisions for us. Too bad you don't stand for the taxpayer.
Whatever the union wants you vote for.
I can't believe people actually questioned Cockayne's motives for going to the ethics board. It will be interesting to see the split on this vote. Everyone endorsed by the union will vote against, while everyone not endorsed will vote for it.
We can expect more of the same with the GASB 45 issue I am sure. Screw the taxpayer, help the unions. Whatever secures your position for the next election right?
April 23, 2008 6:21 PM:
McCauley=smart? answer=NO
As far as this issue goes, obviously Mr. McCauley's union opposes this. Isn't the Democrat Party grand?
"He said that he believes the city's current structure, which relies on elected officials to set policy and a Board of Finance to keep a lid on spending, is working well"
--Obviously he doesn't mind paying more taxes because he's raking in a huge, tax-payer funded salary and bennie package.
2009= Time to replace McCauley
Block: don't be a block-head.
Remember communists are forbidden from the Elk's Club.
Enough with trying to make this a Union issue like everything else Cockayne and Co.
I am willing to bet that most city union workers will say, at least privately, that Ward has done nothing to support them (been neutral at best) and has so far been a disappointment.
At least Kev gives reasons why he is voting against it. Similar to the Mayor (which in itself is ironic), they both sound as if they would support a "City Manager", but not this lite version or COO.
Maybe if the council gets together on this, they can send something back to the charter revision committee to look at instead of just shooting it down.
Valid and reasonable arguments from McCauley, but this is the same guy who stated publicly, "like it or not, the city is in the real estate business". Perhaps he thinks a COO would stifle that silly policy?
"Silly policy"? It isn't policy, it's reality. The City of Bristol owns and manages millions of dollars in property and buildings (schools, parks, fire stations, public utility buildings, etc.) not including the houses we get stuck with when someone defaults on their taxes and then we have to try and sell on the open market. Pull your head out of the sand.
I think since Minor, Cockayne, MaCauley, ane Ward have stated publicly that they support a town manager rather than a COO. They would have a majority to pass it on as a referendum next November. Personally I have always preferred a council/ manager form of government rather than the present proposed strong mayor COO council form proposed by the Charter Revision Committee. But I think the committee compromised in order to take a step in the right direction considering the last four Charter Revision Committee proposed some form of a town manager form of government and it always got knocked down by the town council. Last week when I called thirty business leaders and fellow Bristol taxpayers some said the COO didn't go far enough. Others said any change would be better. Yesterday, I called the ICMA which stands for the International City manager Association, which I'm a member of. They indicated they would not support this COO position and would not send anyone from Washington to support it. They only support a town manager council form of government. So the Council, Committee and mayor should get together and make the changes to a Town manager/council so all taxpayers can benefit. Craig Yarde
April 24, 2008 12:15 PM:
Good point, but I think you need to take your own advice. Again like McCauley, you're getting government business (property acquired from tax defaulting, public buildings, schools, etc) confused with work that is traditionally done by the people and businesses in the private sector. An example of that is when the city buys property from an owner which could otherwise be sold on the market. There's a big difference. Encroaching over that line in an inappropriate and expensive action of government. Mayor Stortz correctly pointed out that the city acquires property without a set policy. The less the city buys and sells property the better off the tax payers are.
April 24, 2008 12:15 PM:
Actually let me retract my statement that your points were "good". They're as silly as McCauley's.
Buying a piece of property and keeping it or maintaining a school building is not an example of "the real estate business". Buying property (like the mall parcel) and selling it is. Except in that case of the city the city is selling the property for a huge loss (on the tab of tax payers). Any private entrepreneur would be forced out the business relatively quickly as should the city as should McCauley from office.
Being a GOP councilman lets you get away with thinking the world is nice and simple, since the voters don't expect any more from you. The world is not that simple. Example #1: the City owns the North Main Street fire station. Local developers have been trying to buy it for years because it's a prime spot. Should we sell it now, or wait until Depot Square gets built and the land is worth even more? Example #2: developers wanted to buy the former park property north of Route 6 several years ago. The City Council initially agreed to sell it for its appraised value, then woke up and raised the price to what the land was actually worth to the developer (who happened to own adjacent land). I could go on and on. If you don't think Bristol is in the real estate business, you're not paying attention.
You're getting the business of "real estate" mixed up with land use. Go back to school.
April 24, 2008 3:23 PM:
"Being a GOP councilman lets you get away with thinking the world is nice and simple, since the voters don't expect any more from you"
-This comment assures me you're confused
-But otherwise; So you think that Councilman McCauley was not referring to the city buying up properties, hap-hazardly and improperly, without the concensous of the people with tax-payer money? You think he meant buying and selling off public land to developers, that in the case of the mall and the firehouse (proposed by you) is something of a pipe-dream? And you think that's a good idea?
Well I and many others DO NOT!
Why is Mccalley using a picture of himself wearing suspenders? It is a fireman thing? Does he think it looks sophisticated? I think it looks stupid.
Since being a fire-man McCauley knows little about the "real estate business", what makes him qualified to make judgements as to whether or not the city should be in "the real estate business"?
DUMP McCAULEY IN 2009!!!
Seems like when you had someone with some common sense in there, and I am talking about Stortz, you didn't support him.
Do you really know what you want?
April 25, 2008 7:44 PM:
Speak for yourself. Or are you Bill?
I happened to be at the meeting in which McCauley stated "like it or not the city is in the real estate business" that was in my opinion pandering to the Federal Hill members that feel the city needs to buy the homes in their neighborhood that are not "ideal".
Is the city in the real estates business? Yes to some extent. As far as buying homes that are not "ideal" then the answer to that is NO.
April 25, 2008 10:25 PM:
You're pretty much "nailing it".
He wasn't talking about normal land use issues pertaining to city property. McCauley is talking about a progressive new policy for the city to buy (randomly we assume) properties in the city "for the good of the community". The problem with that is "which properties, where and why?". It get's expensive.
Does that mean that the city should buy every undesirable property from every two-bit schmuck who suckers the city (case in point: GATO)?
What fools we have as our "leaders".
DUMP McCAULEY IN 2009!!!
Post a Comment