Bustopher Jones
08-21-2008, 06:27 PM
Some skepticism has been expressed as to whether a Charter Revision Commission is needed in Wallingford. In considering this question, one must distinguish between conditions under which an imperative need for change exists due to true operational dysfunction, versus the pursuit of opportunities for improvement to evolve and enhance governmental processes. I will leave the question as to whether dysfunctional issues that mandate Charter revision exist to the politicians. But the creation of a Charter Revision Commission creates a unique opportunity to address a broad range of issues, and to evolve and enhance government in our community. As a citizen of Wallingford with no political axe to grind, I would propose the following observations for the Commission’s consideration.
Perhaps one of the most controversial issues that is likely to be addressed by this Commission is the Town Council majority required to override a Mayoral veto. One must keep in mind that Wallingford has a minority representation requirement with respect to the make-up of the Town Council (as well as other agencies), which guarantees that the Town Council can have no more than a two-thirds majority by any party. Hence, with a requirement of a super-majority of two-thirds plus one to override a veto, if the Mayor and the majority of the Town Council are from different parties, the Mayor still has a virtual veto-proof position. This provision, therefore, needs to be considered in view of the minority representation rule that exists in our town; it would be appropriate to consider a simple two-thirds majority for veto override.
Recent incidents would indicate that the Commission should address a mechanism if vacancies to appointed boards and commissions remain unfilled for an unacceptable period of time. The Commission should consider a maximum allowable horizon for filling such vacancies. If a Mayoral appointment remains unfilled, then the Town Council should be empowered to fill the vacancy by default; conversely, if a Town Council appointment remains unfilled, then the Mayor should be empowered to fill the vacancy by default.
The Commission should consider reinstatement of a 4-year term of office for the Board of Education. The 1989 Charter Revision Commission changed the term of office from 4 years to 2 years. In hindsight, this was probably not a good decision. The current structure does not provide for continuity. Given that some issues may require more than a two-year life for resolution, some continuity of membership and leadership is essential in the best interest of the educational system. Further, keeping in mind that this is a very time-consuming responsibility that receives no compensation, the time and costs required to campaign for election every two years result in causing qualified candidates to forego running for the position or seeking re-election.
A topic that merits at least some discussion is the fundamental leadership structure of government itself in Wallingford. As the Town of Wallingford has grown, so have the needs of the community. Government of larger communities today requires a skill set similar to that which might be expected of a CEO/CFO of a large corporation. The Commission might explore the issue of the establishment of a titular Mayor, with a Town Manager for the administration of government functions, similar to that that exists in other surrounding communities. There is substantial research that suggests that professional administrators do a better job than elected officials when it comes to delivering services effectively. In a 2002 report presented to the American Accounting Association, researchers from Texas A & M University and Auburn University found that "based on samples of large cities from the early 1980s and the mid-1990s, the findings support the perspective that the city manager cities substantially outperform mayor-council cities." (As a sidebar, based on recent surveys, only 16.2 percent of cities with populations in the 24,000-49,000 range use a Mayor-Council form of government; 17.6 percent use a Mayor-Council-Chief Administrative Officer format, while 62.7 percent use a Council-Manager structure.) The centerpiece of these city manager cities is a professional public administrator hired by the Council to recommend a budget, develop programs, and manage the day-to-day operations of city departments and agencies. The Council sets the over-arching vision and policy direction for the city, and the city manager then lays out a plan to accomplish it. Professional city managers go to school to learn their specialized jobs, earning degrees such as Master of Public Administration. They are typically hired under long-term contracts, and because they don’t have to worry about elections, they’re not constantly trying to placate special interest groups. This may not be an issue that will be resolved at this time; but this Commission has the opportunity to open dialog on the concept for future evolution.
The structure of the Town Council itself is a potential topic. A hybrid system of representation (a blend of at-large and geographic representation) represents an interesting option. It is generally accepted that at-large elections are the most desirable for good government; district elections, on the other hand, arise out of necessity. The hybrid concept stresses the value of the at-large principle in designing the composition of a council, while recognizing the necessity of providing for representation of geographical areas under certain circumstances. The at-large system has generally allowed citizens to choose council members best qualified to represent the interests of the community as a whole. In larger or ethnically diverse communities, however, citizens may feel isolated from, and unconnected with, their government without some geographical basis of representation. Hybrid elections are a sound compromise between the need to make all regions of a community represented in government, and the goal of choosing public officials who will serve the interests of the city as a whole rather than any one constituency. Hybrid elections, because of their use of districts, help avert challenges under the Voting Rights Act.
Another potential topic is the inclusion in the Charter of a provision addressing performance measurement. The practice of performance measurement is an accepted and advanced management tool that helps ensure accountability of local government, both internally across departments and externally with constituents. Encouraging the employment of performance measurement in local government ensures that the Charter is cognitive of cutting edge practices. Performance measurement is a specific and specialized tool that may take different forms and approaches depending on the unique factors of each community and local government. Articulating specific requirements in the Charter itself could limit the community's and local government's ability to develop a system that fits their specific needs. Thus, a new section in the Charter, entitled "Performance Measurement" might incorporate language that could be phrased as follows:
“The City is encouraged to develop and implement a performance measurement system as a management and accountability tool, where citizens, council, and management undertake it subject to the year-to-year needs and demands of the community."
The commentary for the new section would describe the rationale for performance measurement. In an Appendix, or perhaps in a separate referencing Ordinance (which would be more flexible and would not require another Charter Revision Commission for amendment), references for the topic would be listed, along with various factors to be considered when developing and maintaining a performance measurement project. Included in these factors would be the roles of citizens, uses of performance measurement, and ways to disseminate the performance measurement information to the community.
As my final point, I would propose that the Commission include in the Charter a provision that the preparation of the annual budget for the Town of Wallingford be based on Zero-Based Budgeting. Zero-Based Budgeting (ZBB) requires that the existence of a government program or programs be justified in each fiscal year, as opposed to simply basing budgeting decisions on a previous year’s funding level. ZBB budgeting is often viewed as a way to ensure against unnecessary spending. ZBB, or some modified version of it, has been used in the private and public sectors for decades. As with most policies, there are both benefits and costs to be taken into account when considering ZBB. Case studies about businesses and governments that have adopted ZBB, or some hybrid of it, generally report some improvement quantitatively or qualitatively; the process has either saved money, improved services, or both. In addition to saving money and improving services, ZBB may increase restraint in developing budgets; reduce the entitlement mentality with respect to cost increases; and make budget discussions more meaningful during review sessions. Admittedly, ZBB may increase the time and expense of preparing a budget; but the benefits can be significant. Zero-Based Budgeting can be useful for shaking up a process that may have grown stale and counterproductive over time. If the Commission feels that doing this annually is too radical a change, then perhaps a compromise requirement for a biennial ZBB preparation might be considered.
These, then, are some thoughts from an average citizen of our community. A Charter Revision Commission may have imperative dysfunctional issues that must be addressed. But it also has an opportunity to facilitate evolution of local government in a manner that will modernize its execution and prepare it for future challenges. In this context, change becomes an imperative in and of itself.
Perhaps one of the most controversial issues that is likely to be addressed by this Commission is the Town Council majority required to override a Mayoral veto. One must keep in mind that Wallingford has a minority representation requirement with respect to the make-up of the Town Council (as well as other agencies), which guarantees that the Town Council can have no more than a two-thirds majority by any party. Hence, with a requirement of a super-majority of two-thirds plus one to override a veto, if the Mayor and the majority of the Town Council are from different parties, the Mayor still has a virtual veto-proof position. This provision, therefore, needs to be considered in view of the minority representation rule that exists in our town; it would be appropriate to consider a simple two-thirds majority for veto override.
Recent incidents would indicate that the Commission should address a mechanism if vacancies to appointed boards and commissions remain unfilled for an unacceptable period of time. The Commission should consider a maximum allowable horizon for filling such vacancies. If a Mayoral appointment remains unfilled, then the Town Council should be empowered to fill the vacancy by default; conversely, if a Town Council appointment remains unfilled, then the Mayor should be empowered to fill the vacancy by default.
The Commission should consider reinstatement of a 4-year term of office for the Board of Education. The 1989 Charter Revision Commission changed the term of office from 4 years to 2 years. In hindsight, this was probably not a good decision. The current structure does not provide for continuity. Given that some issues may require more than a two-year life for resolution, some continuity of membership and leadership is essential in the best interest of the educational system. Further, keeping in mind that this is a very time-consuming responsibility that receives no compensation, the time and costs required to campaign for election every two years result in causing qualified candidates to forego running for the position or seeking re-election.
A topic that merits at least some discussion is the fundamental leadership structure of government itself in Wallingford. As the Town of Wallingford has grown, so have the needs of the community. Government of larger communities today requires a skill set similar to that which might be expected of a CEO/CFO of a large corporation. The Commission might explore the issue of the establishment of a titular Mayor, with a Town Manager for the administration of government functions, similar to that that exists in other surrounding communities. There is substantial research that suggests that professional administrators do a better job than elected officials when it comes to delivering services effectively. In a 2002 report presented to the American Accounting Association, researchers from Texas A & M University and Auburn University found that "based on samples of large cities from the early 1980s and the mid-1990s, the findings support the perspective that the city manager cities substantially outperform mayor-council cities." (As a sidebar, based on recent surveys, only 16.2 percent of cities with populations in the 24,000-49,000 range use a Mayor-Council form of government; 17.6 percent use a Mayor-Council-Chief Administrative Officer format, while 62.7 percent use a Council-Manager structure.) The centerpiece of these city manager cities is a professional public administrator hired by the Council to recommend a budget, develop programs, and manage the day-to-day operations of city departments and agencies. The Council sets the over-arching vision and policy direction for the city, and the city manager then lays out a plan to accomplish it. Professional city managers go to school to learn their specialized jobs, earning degrees such as Master of Public Administration. They are typically hired under long-term contracts, and because they don’t have to worry about elections, they’re not constantly trying to placate special interest groups. This may not be an issue that will be resolved at this time; but this Commission has the opportunity to open dialog on the concept for future evolution.
The structure of the Town Council itself is a potential topic. A hybrid system of representation (a blend of at-large and geographic representation) represents an interesting option. It is generally accepted that at-large elections are the most desirable for good government; district elections, on the other hand, arise out of necessity. The hybrid concept stresses the value of the at-large principle in designing the composition of a council, while recognizing the necessity of providing for representation of geographical areas under certain circumstances. The at-large system has generally allowed citizens to choose council members best qualified to represent the interests of the community as a whole. In larger or ethnically diverse communities, however, citizens may feel isolated from, and unconnected with, their government without some geographical basis of representation. Hybrid elections are a sound compromise between the need to make all regions of a community represented in government, and the goal of choosing public officials who will serve the interests of the city as a whole rather than any one constituency. Hybrid elections, because of their use of districts, help avert challenges under the Voting Rights Act.
Another potential topic is the inclusion in the Charter of a provision addressing performance measurement. The practice of performance measurement is an accepted and advanced management tool that helps ensure accountability of local government, both internally across departments and externally with constituents. Encouraging the employment of performance measurement in local government ensures that the Charter is cognitive of cutting edge practices. Performance measurement is a specific and specialized tool that may take different forms and approaches depending on the unique factors of each community and local government. Articulating specific requirements in the Charter itself could limit the community's and local government's ability to develop a system that fits their specific needs. Thus, a new section in the Charter, entitled "Performance Measurement" might incorporate language that could be phrased as follows:
“The City is encouraged to develop and implement a performance measurement system as a management and accountability tool, where citizens, council, and management undertake it subject to the year-to-year needs and demands of the community."
The commentary for the new section would describe the rationale for performance measurement. In an Appendix, or perhaps in a separate referencing Ordinance (which would be more flexible and would not require another Charter Revision Commission for amendment), references for the topic would be listed, along with various factors to be considered when developing and maintaining a performance measurement project. Included in these factors would be the roles of citizens, uses of performance measurement, and ways to disseminate the performance measurement information to the community.
As my final point, I would propose that the Commission include in the Charter a provision that the preparation of the annual budget for the Town of Wallingford be based on Zero-Based Budgeting. Zero-Based Budgeting (ZBB) requires that the existence of a government program or programs be justified in each fiscal year, as opposed to simply basing budgeting decisions on a previous year’s funding level. ZBB budgeting is often viewed as a way to ensure against unnecessary spending. ZBB, or some modified version of it, has been used in the private and public sectors for decades. As with most policies, there are both benefits and costs to be taken into account when considering ZBB. Case studies about businesses and governments that have adopted ZBB, or some hybrid of it, generally report some improvement quantitatively or qualitatively; the process has either saved money, improved services, or both. In addition to saving money and improving services, ZBB may increase restraint in developing budgets; reduce the entitlement mentality with respect to cost increases; and make budget discussions more meaningful during review sessions. Admittedly, ZBB may increase the time and expense of preparing a budget; but the benefits can be significant. Zero-Based Budgeting can be useful for shaking up a process that may have grown stale and counterproductive over time. If the Commission feels that doing this annually is too radical a change, then perhaps a compromise requirement for a biennial ZBB preparation might be considered.
These, then, are some thoughts from an average citizen of our community. A Charter Revision Commission may have imperative dysfunctional issues that must be addressed. But it also has an opportunity to facilitate evolution of local government in a manner that will modernize its execution and prepare it for future challenges. In this context, change becomes an imperative in and of itself.