To some, creating a chief operating officer for the city would put Bristol on “a horrible road,” while others see it as an essential step to keep the community growing.
A professional overseer at City Hall would be able to "change the culture, little by little, for the better,” said Blake Dellabianca, a developer with a 30-year history in town.
Business officials who spoke during Tuesday’s public hearing on the plan generally favored the charter change that would create the new position while union members expressed skepticism. The Greater Bristol Chamber of Commerce’s board of directors unanimously backed the proposal.
"With a $200 million budget in the city of Bristol, in a city that's continuing to grow, we just feel the necessity to have professional support for the mayor's office is essential," said former Mayor John Leone.
"My concern would be the privatization of city employees," said Sean Burke, a janitor at one of the high schools.
Burke said that a chief operating officer who could rack up four-year terms is going to have some real clout over time.
"If this guy wants to start cutting city employees, I'm concerned," Burke said.
The Charter Revision Commission plans as soon as next Tuesday to complete a report urging that city councilors agree to give voters the last word on whether to add a chief operating officer to Bristol’s municipal structure.
Other proposals on its agenda include switching to an appointed city treasurer and extending the registrars’ terms to four years instead of the two-year stints they currently serve. Nobody spoke on the treasurer change while former city Councilor Tom Ragaini voiced support for longer terms for registrars.
Leone said the continuity and oversight of a professional administrator would improve city operations.
"It would be very helpful to have somebody there who would be there administration to administration, Democrat or Republican, it makes no difference," Leone said.
"I just don't see the need for it," Ragaini said.
Terry Parker, a resident active in Democratic politics, said the position could be created today without revising the charter. The mayor and City Council could hire someone to do the work envisioned for the chief operating officer right now, he said.Ragaini said former Mayor Gerard Couture took "a baby step" toward its creation when he had a $25,000-a-year, part-time assistant. He said officials could go further in creating a new position if it's needed.
Tim Furey, chairman of the charter panel, said the data he’s seen makes him think the new position he backs would cost up to $130,000 annually, but easily pay for itself in improved efficiency within city government.
Dellabianca said elected officials are conscientious and well-meaning, but few have the background to head an organization with a large budget and many employees. He said they need someone with experience "who can manage the day-to-day things."
Dellabianca said some current city supervisors are capable and others are not. The trend, though, is bad, he said.
"Things are getting worse. They're not getting better," Dellabianca said.
"It's just absurd we didn't have a manager-council form of government decades ago," he said. "We're way, way behind."
"You need to do this," he urged charter commissioners. "It disturbs me when I see some of things that are going on."
Resident Chad Lockhart said that towns that have managers have found the professionals haven't been good for labor.
"I went out and voted to try to get the mayor," he said, and bringing in a chief operating officer undermines the value of an election.
"Before you know, you have a city manager who can do what he wants," Lockhart said.
He said an entrenched chief operating officer "could lead us down a horrible road we don't want to be in."
Lockhart and Ragaini each questioned whether the city can afford to pay another costly professional
"Can this town sustain the impact of what this guy's going to get paid?" Lockhart said. "I don't think we need another high-paid official."
If the charter panel adopts the idea, the decision would next go to the City Council. If councilors agree, the proposition would be put on the November 4 general election ballot for voters would render the ultimate decision.
*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com
20 comments:
A COO and a full time Mayor would be disasterous and expensive in more ways than one.
What does the current Mayor and members of the City Council feel about this?
Did you poll them Steve?
Not yet. ;)
How about others in addition to our elected officials??
The mayor will do what the Unions want him to do!
How about others? That's what the public hearing was for. But anyone with an opinion can pipe up here.
As I have stated before, my primary concern is the lack of accountability to the voters in relation to a COO.If they could find a way to accomplish that,then I would be inclined to give it some consideration,but not as it appears to be formatted at present.
I'm sick of hearing about the unions. The only reason everyone feels that they run the city is because we allow them to. The taxpayers in this city are a larger number than the union member.
Yhe mayor and most of the council have ties to the union what chance do we have .Big favors are owed after the election.
How do we get rid of him or her if they do a lousy job? Sounds like they could end up being a dictator and the voters have no say .
Remeber all this in the next city election when someone is running and is not in the Unions pocket.
They will need YOUR support!
Hey 9:46 If your so sick of hearing about the unions you should shut your big mouth about them and get on with the show. But we can see that you're too blind to see that. You're biases are ruling you again.
Hey I just thought of a new name for Art . How about Macawbre ?
What good is a COO going to be if the Mayor/Council have a final say in whatever he/she suggests?
And the COO will be supervised by the Mayor, so there is still no real benefit.
After 14 years you should have a pretty good idea of what a person is like.
That is, if you pay atttention.
"Lockhart and Ragaini each questioned whether the city can afford to pay another costly professional"
Exactly!
Gamush-head:
The whole idea with the city manager is that the position will not be subject to polictics. In other words the voting majority may not always know what is best for the city. The professional is hired based on his/her skill. That skill is what his/her decisions are based upon not the whims of the majority.
If you want accountability to the voters, then we should just stay with the strong mayor format which we have now. The city manager (in theory) and the mayor positions are what they are.
Like I said on the other string Sounds like someone on here has "Union Phobia" It's called jealousy.
And if your sick as you say about hearing about unions , Stop brining them up ya jerk. Also try something meaningful.
A Towm Manger or a COO would cost at least $200,000/yr, in adition to whatever the council decides to pay the mayor and secretary.
I find it interesting that a committee made up of people who have not managed in the city, or any large organization, feel qualified to come up with a recomendation such as this.
Where is their rationale other than to provgide support and cover for inept mayors?
Post a Comment