The city would gain a chief operating officer if a proposal approved by the Charter Revision Commission passes muster.
The position would be added to the structure of city government with the idea that whoever holds it would oversee most of the City Hall’s senior managers instead of having the mayor alone at the helm.
It isn’t clear exactly how the new structure would work on a practical basis.
“Someone’s got to be the overall manager,” said Tim Furey, chairman of the charter panel.
He said the chief operating officer would “coordinate management” and ensure policies developed by the mayor and City Council are implemented properly.
The proposal is something akin to a city manager-lite, leaving the full-time mayor in place but adding an administrative post that would take on the role of supervising the city’s department heads.
It’s not clear whether Mayor Art Ward or the council would approve the creation of a costly new position. If they do support it, voters would have the final say in November.
Before it can happen, though, a large number of issues still need to be resolved, including how to deal with charter provisions that give various municipal boards – including police and fire – oversight of some department heads.
Many department heads report to both appointed boards and the mayor now. The new plan would substitute the chief operating officer for the mayor.
Furey said the mayor would remain as a full-time policymaker, freed of the necessity of overseeing underlings day in and day out. “That’s too demanding,” he said.
Charter commissioners said they’d give the council the right to fire a chief operating manager on a two-thirds vote of members present at a legal meeting.
That would mean that as few as three councilors could dump the COO if the minimum of four were present to make it a legal session.
Among the complications that are uncertain is how the COO would fit in with the comptroller’s office that already reviews bills as well as the Board of Finance that controls city spending.
Furey said a new section would be added to the charter detailing the new position.
Members of the panel are mulling qualifications and the specific duties a COO would perform.
The charter panel meets next at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, Feb. 26 at City Hall, when it will take up the issue again.
*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com
9 comments:
Does attorney Furey know how hard it is to get two thirds of anyone present ? And the Town manager answers to no one, not even the voters.
"Before it can happen, though, a large number of issues still need to be resolved, including how to deal with charter provisions that give various municipal boards – including police and fire – oversight of some department heads."
But that's the problem with these two departments - there is no oversight. Both boards are rubberstamps, and the two chiefs use their influence with the mayor to keep them that way.
The Town Manager concept is working in many towns and cities.
What is needed is the right regulatory procedures AND the will of the politicians to want to have it happen.
Bristol, because of its goood old boy mentality, will fight it and make it difficult for it to succeed.
But, if people are sincere about running the city like a business, or more business like, they need to move ahead with this idea.
Unfortunately, I am not too optomistic that the good of the city will prevail.
The Unions will be out in force to block this also.
No matter what they say, they take care of their own first at the expense of everyone else.
This is interesting. It's the same position Kosta had during the Couture administration and everyone was against that. Some say all he did was the Mall work, but that's not true. He worked on budgets with department heads, negotiated a smaller legal bill from the lawyers handling the Bugryn case, Zoning issues, etc.
So what's the difference now that makes everyone like the idea?
Great! Just what we need in Bristol - another $100,000+ a year administrator to kick back on the public dole. I can't see how this could possibly be worth the moneyt that it would cost. And if it is, how come we'd still need a full time mayor? Taxpayers can't keep forking it over for these highly paid bureaucrats. Bristol isn't growing, but its government sure is!!!
The Town Manager answers to the Council!!
No, you shouldn't have a full time mayor in addition to a Town Manager.
I see the recipe for a political appointee that is not qualified for the legitimate Town Manger role.
Do we want to run the city properly, or do we want to make it someones fiefdom?
No legitimate qualified individual would be interested in the job as I see it developing.
Gee how come so many places are empty ? Because many businesses are going under? The City is still viable ! Do you really want the City to run like a business? They want your tax dollars to stay alive. Your tax dollars investments and you earn nothing if they do well or lose.
Post a Comment