Prop 300

[lalahartma]

But doesn't a manager, a council and a mayor seem like redundancy?

[Bullitt007]

Originally Posted by colobill

And to follow your theory, we would be better off if Mayor Rivera had more power???

Our last city manager had an exemplary record before she came here. She was hired based on her education, and past successes. We can argue back and forth whether her advice was wrong, or council was wrong for not following her advice.

All I am saying is, you never know what you are going to get. And I do think it is less expensive to replace a city manager than recall or ride out a term with a bad strong mayor.

If I am missing something, please explain how giving an elected official more power will improve the management of our city.

Where did I say "Mayor Rivera"? This has nothing to do with Dem vs. Rep, etc.

It's simply a form of government. We tried the City Manager venue and it's now time to move away from it.

I will explain how a stong mayor improves on the management of the city...

A strong mayor will have more ability to make and implement decisions in line with a vision for the city, articulated to and chosen by a majority of voters.

A strong mayor won't be burdened with working another job for primary income and instead, work full-time for the citizens of Colorado Springs.

A strong mayor will better represent Colorado Springs to other levels of government and will better assist in economic development activities for our community's prosperity.

A strong mayor will respond to challenges quicker and maximize opportunities.

AND...Voters will have the ability to hold a strong mayor accountable for implementing the vision they voted for!

[colobill]

Originally Posted by Bullitt007

Where did I say "Mayor Rivera"? This has nothing to do with Dem vs. Rep, etc.

It's simply a form of government. We tried the City Manager venue and it's now time to move away from it.

I will explain how a stong mayor improves on the management of the city...

A strong mayor will have more ability to make and implement decisions in line with a vision for the city, articulated to and chosen by a majority of voters.

A strong mayor won't be burdened with working another job for primary income and instead, work full-time for the citizens of Colorado Springs.

A strong mayor will better represent Colorado Springs to other levels of government and will better assist in economic development activities for our community's prosperity.

A strong mayor will respond to challenges quicker and maximize opportunities.

AND...Voters will have the ability to hold a strong mayor accountable for implementing the vision they voted for!

I think you missed my point. When I referenced Mayor Rivera, I was not making an argument for Dem or Rep. My point was, elected officials do not necessarily represent the will of the people. Just because a majority vote in a particular candidate, that is no guarantee that the elected official will make decisions based on the will of the majority.

If we vote in a strong mayor, you had better hope that their vision of the future is in line with your vision! And of course, any promises made during the campaign will surely come to fruition. After all, politicians always follow through on their campaign promises.

Having a full-time mayor does make more sense than having a part-time mayor, but having a full-time mayor and full-time council makes even better sense. You are assuming that a strong mayor will work full-time for the citizens. I think a lone strong mayor will work full-time for the largest contributors of their campaign, and part-time for the citizens of Colorado Springs.

Exactly how will the voters hold the strong mayor accountable for implementing the vision and will of the voters??? By voting them out 4 years later???

Many of your points would make perfect sense if it was applied to a diverse panel, board, or council. I agree that having a part-time council and mayor does not attract the best candidates, and does not allow them to focus the needs of the city. But not when all of that power is given to one individual who once again, will be accepting campaign contributions from big business.

Having a city manager, mayor, and council is not redundant, it is diverse and a better representation for the community.

An appointed city manager will provide a much purer and unbiased leadership than you will ever get from an elected official.

[Mike from back east]

Excellent piece in the Gazette today, with the viewpoints of the League of Women Voters and a former police chief. Excellent reading.

[ShelleyJ]

And to follow your theory, we would be better off if Mayor Rivera had more power???

Oh gosh! That is a scary thought.

[CitizenM]

To be a city manager requires specifc skills and even thought we recently hired a bad city manager, if the elected mayor is also responsible for the duties of a city manager then anyone who's a good politician (regardelss of thier skill set) could end up manging the daily workings of our city government. If the mayor isn't qualified to do that work then we're in a really bad position. Keeping the mayor as it is today allows the city council to hire the best qualified person for the job versus a person who's just a good politician.

[Mike from back east]

Today's newspaper carries a story that "Developers Loan Strong Mayor Campaign $300k."

So far the sponsoring group has spent over $400k on this deal, which seems a bad deal for citizens, who'll probably end up paying higher taxes for the cost of expensive infrastructure build-out to support ever more senseless sprawl.