Proposed change is bad for the public

Proponents of the Strong Mayor-Council Initiative named their group ACT, short for Accountability Comes to Town. They proclaim that by changing our form of government that an independently elected strong mayor, as chief executive officer of the city, will be more accountable than the current city manager.

Nothing could be further from the truth and in fact there will be far less accountability under their proposal.

Currently, the city manager serves under provision of a signed employment agreement setting forth that he serves at the pleasure of the city council and the council may terminate his employment immediately when a majority of the council does not believe he is performing his duties satisfactorily.

Section nine of his employment agreement specifies conditions of the severance, including severance pay and forfeiture of severance pay for inappropriate acts or behavior.

Simply stated, the city manager could be gone tomorrow if he is not doing his job.

Under the proposed change, if the strong mayor is not doing his/her job, he/she remains in office until the end of their four-year term, no matter how unhappy the citizens are, unless a recall is initiated pursuant to the Washington Constitution, Article I, Sections 33-34, 8 RCW 29A.56.110.

Essentially, the mayor must be charged with violation of their oath of office, or malfeasance or misfeasance, or be guilty of two or more acts defined in the state constitution.

A petition in concise language must be presented to the county auditor, who will serve the elected official with the charge. The petition then goes to the Superior Court to determine the sufficiency of the charge. The Superior Court will conduct a hearing within 15 days of receipt of the petition. If the mayor doesn’t agree with the decision, he/she can appeal to the state Supreme Court, a process that could drag out for months.

After the recall petition has been approved by the courts, those who petitioned must gather signatures of at least 25 percent of the number of votes cast in the last election. The signatures must be verified and certified and a special election set within 45 to 60 days. One only need look at recent events in Spokane to understand just how unpleasant and expensive that ordeal can be. It is extremely disruptive to city operations, creates very negative publicity and draws attention to the city in the wrong way.

Is that accountability? I don’t think so. It is costly, cumbersome and divisive, and subjects citizens to inferior management of essential city services. It is totally unnecessary since a far more efficient and effective means of holding the chief executive officer of the city is already in place. If there is a successful recall of the mayor, the city is in limbo while an election for a new mayor is held. That may be several months from the recall. It is simply bad business and does not serve the public well.

C.L. Vaughn, Federal Way

—-

Tar n’ feather members of City Council

Your argument against a strong mayor is laughable (“Leave city’s government alone,” Dec. 5).

With a strong mayor that is not performing, you may have to wait for the end of his four-year term to end, but as it stands now, we have seven City Council members that are doing a crappy job. As it stands now, we not only have to wait out their terms, but we have to change or remove a majority of the seven to make a change.

It’s so much easier to change one than four — electing a strong mayor makes sense. In my many years in Federal Way, I have seen the same corrupt faces over and over again because most folks don’t know what the council does behind closed doors.

I am sick of taking matters to the council only to have them pass the buck on to someone else and never do anything. I am sick of seeing our beautiful city be over run by panhandling bums and I am sick of seeing our businesses driven out by the policies set forth by the City Council. With the exception of one council member, they should all be tarred and feathered and run out on their light rail.

Judy Lee, Federal Way

—-

Say no to elected mayor

I’m responding to the Dec. 5 letter from Dave McKenzie titled “City deserves an elected mayor.”

I think the voters need to know that some of the things he said about an elected mayor just will not happen.

Large cities like Seattle can afford to have both a mayor and a city administrator. They have a larger budget to draw from and a large number of employees to manage. Federal Way does not have the funds to afford both positions, nor the need. Bellevue and Tacoma rank among Washington’s largest cities and do not use the elected mayor form of government.

The article written about the Nov. 18 meeting at Decatur High School was clear in stating that Wes Crago did not endorse either form of government over the other. I personally heard him say that. Do you have selective hearing, Mr. McKenzie?

An elected mayor is no more accountable than a mayor who is part of the City Council. Neither one can be removed before their term expires unless they are recalled. What does strong mayor mean? A city manager can provide the same leadership as an elected mayor and they both have the same authority. An elected mayor can veto council action, but if overridden the mayor must follow council policies. That does not give him or her any more power over day-to-day operations than a city manager.

I’d like to ask what you stand to gain, Mr. McKenzie, if this change is made. An elected mayor does mean spending an additional quarter of a million dollars every year and we don’t have that money laying around.

Anyone who thinks that the voters will elect a mayor who has the qualifications to run a complex city is deluded. Even if we do elect a qualified mayor, do you think we will fire the city administrator because he or she would not be necessary? Later when we elect a politician with no qualifications to run the city, will we hire a city administrator again? No city administrator will go to work for us knowing that his or her job could end at the next election. We believe this truly is one of those “unnecessary programs and projects.”

With a city administrator, what will an elected mayor be doing all day? An elected mayor will try to enhance his or her chances of being re-elected (or as a stepping stone to a higher office). He or she might fire department heads to give jobs to their friends. Good city staff and managers will not want to work for a city that might have large changes after each election.

A complaint to the City Council would have the same effect as talking to an elected mayor. An elected mayor can’t make special exceptions to established policies just to make someone happy. The mayor does not have any magical powers that the City Council or various laws do not give him or her.

If the citizens are fed up, change the members of the City Council. They are the ones who set policy, not an elected mayor.

Does Mr. McKenzie suggest “bureaucracy” does not exist in Seattle, Washington state or the United States, which all have an elected leader form? Government could learn from the corporate model you apparently despise.

You said that many people signed a petition, but that does not necessarily mean that they support it. It only means that they want the issue brought to a vote so we can find out what the voters want. Again to be clear, how much of the issue was explained to those who signed the petition?

Mr. McKenzie, would you care to list some of the “not so good” decisions an elected mayor could have avoided? Or do you want to hide behind vague statements? Our current mayor along with all other City Council members is already accountable to you and to the voters, so why do we need a change, what would it get you?

Donald E. Dennis, Federal Way