By Al Mitchell, Hamilton
Making a change, simply for the sake of change, rarely works out. As a former Hamilton city councilman, I am perplexed by the Hamilton Study Commission’s recommendation to change our form of government from mayor-council to a charter-based system with a council and City Manager.
Throughout the study process, there was very little input from the citizens that suggested any change in the current system was necessary or desired. In fact, the majority of responses to the commission’s survey expressed satisfaction with our present system.
Creating a new City Manager position will be costly and may not produce any better results than the mayor-council form of government. Surely, it will remove the citizens from the process of electing their chief executive officer. The City Manager is appointed by the council, and if by chance, the citizens don’t care for the decisions being made by the Manager and council, instead of simply voting out the mayor at the end of his/her term, it could require replacing up to four councilors over a four-year period to remove a “rogue” Manager.
Speaking of costs, our current system with mayor and council costs $83,700 per year. The proposed Charter government with City Manager is projected to cost $132,973 annually. That is $49,000 more than taxpayers are currently paying. And to get to this inflated figure, the commission wants the taxpayers to cut the current councilor pay by 66% and the mayor’s salary by 82%. It doesn’t take much to figure out that these folks would soon be leaving their positions. Imagine your reaction if your pay was suddenly cut by 2/3 or more! The continuity that exists in our current system could be thrown back into the infighting and chaos that existed in city government one decade ago.
It all boils down to the Study Commission wanting the voters to approve a system that removes the chief executive from popular vote at a much higher price tag. Where is the sense in all of this? Is it change simply for the sake of change, or did some of the commission come into the process with a predetermined outcome in mind?
Does anyone else see the irony here, that the two proponents of the new form of government are former city council members who were voted out at the end of their terms? I served on the council with both of these individuals, and never once during their time in office, did either one mention that they might be getting overpaid for their efforts. Perhaps there is more here than meets the eye. Therefore, I wholeheartedly support the minority opinion of committee person Robert Smaus and ask the citizens of Hamilton to vote—For the existing council-mayor form of government.