Given the recent Mayoral election results, Mr. Jahns departure isn't completely unexpected but it has happened much sooner than I would have predicted.
Tim Paullisen managed to scare a certain voting block of citizens in to thinking that we made a mistake when we changed to a Mayor/Council form of government. He is wrong.
Tim - you haven't even been in office a month. This is on YOU. The citizens of League City do not want to see our City turned upside down (again) and we sure as hell don't want you running it. Under our form of government you were elected to be a figurehead and I, for one, am not going to let you forget that's all you are - a figurehead.
This all sounds so familiar, like a broken record, first it was Toni now Timmy. They all want to micro-manage! We will lose more before its all over and this is demoralizing to us as staff members
You are presumptuous in declaring Mr. Paulissen wrong by opposing the Council-Manager form of municipal government. Well, two can play that game. You are wrong.
The truth is that there are serious cons with Council-Manager. The long version can be found at
http://galvestondailynews.com/story/155524/
Some excerpts:
"Just because council-manager is popular doesn’t mean that it’s good. With our current charter, clarified by ordinances already in place, we can be a better-than-average city by taking the best elements of both the strong mayor and city manager forms of government. ... League City government under a city manager would have less accountability than exists now. A city manager is a bureaucrat not answerable to the people."
I wrote this last year. I served on the Charter Review Committee in 2007. I know what I'm talking about.
I have had a good, if limited, working relationship with our current City Manager, Mr. Jahns. City operations have been running smoothly (with a notable exception) under him because he acts in good faith, he listens, and he doesn't have a big head.
The day we get a City Manager that's the opposite of all those things is when we will be in huge trouble. Ousting a City Manager is one too many steps removed from the voters; at least a mayor in a strong mayor form of government is directly answerable to the citizens every three years, and maybe sooner if there is a recall.
I agree with Tim on this one issue. Voters do make mistakes. For example: Lyndon Johnson in 1964 and Richard Nixon in 1972. Also, at least one League City mayor previous to Toni...
I note with humor that the debate about causes of resignations and whether or not deleterious micromanagement is occurring might all be moot. If the city doesn't get this water situ under control, people are going to be calling for sacrificial slaughter of the political kind. http://centerpointeleaguecity.blogspot.com/2011/06/moe-water-woe.html
Chuck, Rather than cite concerns with the revised charter, why not tell us what you feel would be the best approach? Tweak the existing charter? Go back to the old way of doing business? Do something different?
If I properly understand your concern, the fix is to make sure you do a good job of interviewing and vetting candidates. A truly bad CM will get ousted by a good council. Hence it's up to us the citizens to elect good council. We've been doing pretty good in that regard for a while, hopefully we'll be able to keep it up.
Chuck,I very much respect your intellect and opinion, but we're going to have to agree to disagree on which form of government will serve us best.
BHL brings up the point that has me concerned: if we start flip-flopping with Charter changes, might that not affect our bond ratings? Some bankers might consider multiple Charter changes as a town that isn't capable of governing itself. Like La Marque. They can't even decipher their own charter.
I realize that many smart and well meaning people favor the council (a.k.a. city) manager form of government. Its clear structure, its firewall between politicians and civil servants, and its supreme focus on professionalism comforts them.
BHL, I think you completely misunderstand my reservations. The council manager form of government is by definition undemocratic. It suffers from two serious flaws. First, it centralizes power. Second, the power center (city manager) is not elected. The strong mayor form only suffers from the first, and thus is only marginally better. Liberty is sacrificed for comfort.
The form of government League City had before 2010 was not "strong mayor." The proper terminology is "weak mayor-council." Power was split between mayor, city council, and staff. The division of authority in three parts reflects the US Constitution, which vests federal power among the President, Congress, and the Judiciary. The reason why we didn't have strong mayor before 2010 was that the mayor could not unilaterally fire the city administrator, nor could appoint board members without council's consent.
As far as bond issues go with changing the charter again, I think that's the least of our worries. I don't know when we'll get our first power hungry, uncivil city manager. It could be 20 weeks or 20 years. The first bad one will be written off as a bad choice. It won't be until the second bad one that many people start thinking about changing form of government instead of just who's doing the governing.
Why are you debating whether the Charter should have been changed? That debate is over and the Charter was amended--end of argument until the next Charter revision is proposed.
The problem here is that the people of League City approved changing the City to Council/Manager then promptly elected a Mayor who had announced he didn't support that change and didn't want to follow the law. Either the Mayor is going to follow the law and stop trying to intervene in the daily operation of the City or he is going to drive off every competent professional who might be interested in working for the City.
Mr. Jahns is right, and I don't blame him for resigning. The Mayor and Council set policy and budget, and the City Manager executes that policy within the confines of the budget. Having the Mayor and Council sit in on or insist on meetings to discuss how the policy is to be implemented is not acceptable.
Chuck, From what I gather your issue is philosophical regarding the overall democratic process (or lack thereof) regarding a city manager structure. I don't know why you referred to a stong mayor. We never had a strong mayor form of govt. We had an unique hybrid which resulted in all kinds of issues and inabilities to get anything done. It sounds like you prefer the old way.
My take is that the worst case scenario is where we have either a total incompetant or a total-on-the-take Manager AND an do-nothing city council.
A do-nothing council wouldn't last long given that two or three members are up for election every year, whereas if we were strong mayor, we could be stuck with garbage (e.g. trashgate) for three years.
Clearly, small towns are not for you as the city manager structure is highly popular among such towns. Whether you like it or not, it is perfectly legal. May I remind you that every city, state, and the federal government has people running various departments making managerial decisions at various levels. I would posit that as a city, we are operating at a different level than the fed govt and unless you want full time paid council members (ala congress) to make every single decision and vote on every single line item expenditure, my advice would be to get over it and hold your elected officials responsible for ensuring that the city manager is doing a good job.
(1) The debate is over, until it's not. Clearly, the issue over form of government is over for the near future. I think it will take two bad city managers in a row for the debate to gain traction. Debate now sets the stage for some indefinite future situation.
I have been in this town long enough to witness, participate in, and change multiple indefinite future events.
(2) Your accusation that Mr. Paulissen did not and/or does not want to follow the law is both serious and unfounded. Since you're the accuser, you should provide evidence of such unlawfulness, including specific statements and/or actions, and how same violate a specific city charter clause or ordinance.
(3) How do you know that "Mayor and Council sit in on or insist on meetings to discuss how the policy is to be implemented"? Please make public such information, as I have read and heard extensively, and have recognized no such thing. The closest I have seen is in the Galveston County Daily News, June 16, p. 3, where "Mayor Tim Paulissen...proposed to discuss personnel actions." The city charter states that the city manager can "Appoint, suspend, or remove any employee of the city..." It doesn't take a rocket scientist, English professor, or lawyer to know that "propose to discuss" is not the same as "appoint, suspend, or remove." However, if you have hidden evidence, please enlighten the rest of us.
(4) Mayor Paulissen must work with the city manager simply because he has no choice. That doesn't mean that he or anybody else must like it.
BHL,
You're still not hitting on all cylinders.
(1) You're right about my philisophical reservations about the city manager form of government. I predict that sometime this decade, philisophy will become reality in League City. There are other cities in Galveston County that struggle with the city manager form of government: http://galvestondailynews.com/story/233454/
(2) League City is not stuck with a mayor for any length of time. La Marque just recalled theirs. Last year, LC voters made it "not impossible" to do the same by changing the charter (Proposition 2).
(3) I referred to the "strong mayor" form of government because it is a common choice in municipal governments. Example: a small town called Houston, Texas. Strong mayor was actively discussed in the LC Charter Review Committee in 2007. Also, contrasting the differences between the various forms, like I did, serves to understand them all.
(4) How do you know that small towns are "clearly" not for me? Do you think if there's one thing I don't like, I don't like the whole thing? I prefer to change for the better, if and when the opportunity presents itself. For example, the new League City Economic Development Plan. If anybody knows me, he/she knows that my top municipal issue for the past 12 years have been land use. More accurate is the statement that a town without zoning is not for me.
(5) I don't have to get over anything, particularly if I think it involves injustice and/or an offense against American ideals.
Hey Chuck, Thaks for the tune-up. As for not hitting on all cylinders you said, "a small town called Houston, Texas." The last time Houston was a small town was just before the Galveston storm.
Yea Mayor recall. Geraldine Sam was off the deep-end, making it easy. I don't think Herr Jerr would have been recalled under the new charter, but that's my opinion.
You may call our current system an offense against American Ideals, but I and many LC citizens disagree with you as evidenced by two elections ago. Let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.
As far as my remark about Houston being a small town, that was a joke. Ok, not one of my better ones. I much better like the one about the disease that only mayors and city council members get: "Big projectitis."
Your remark: "I'm moving forward. Your move is your call." implies that I'm not moving forward, whatever that means. I'm light years ahead of you, BHL.
"Voters do make mistakes. For example: Lyndon Johnson in 1964 and Richard Nixon in 1972"
@Chuck, How about Barry O'bama 2008? Richard Nixon, one of the best Presidents. I am glad you did not say Ronald Reagan, if you did, I would have to take umbrage with that statement.
You've got to me kidding me! Of all people, you should know how horrible Nixon was. 1970: he imposed wage and price controls on the US economy. 1971: he took the US off the gold standard. 1972: Forrest Gump reported annoying lights in the middle of the night at the Watergate Hotel.
18 comments:
Given the recent Mayoral election results, Mr. Jahns departure isn't completely unexpected but it has happened much sooner than I would have predicted.
Tim Paullisen managed to scare a certain voting block of citizens in to thinking that we made a mistake when we changed to a Mayor/Council form of government. He is wrong.
Tim - you haven't even been in office a month. This is on YOU. The citizens of League City do not want to see our City turned upside down (again) and we sure as hell don't want you running it. Under our form of government you were elected to be a figurehead and I, for one, am not going to let you forget that's all you are - a figurehead.
I'm adopting Hakuna Matata as my philosophy. I was very critical of Toni as she came in, but was willing to give her a chance and she done ok.
I'm not going to be critical of Tim just because of resignations. I will be watching to see how the city moves forward.
This all sounds so familiar, like a broken record, first it was Toni now Timmy. They all want to micro-manage! We will lose more before its all over and this is demoralizing to us as staff members
Morgan,
You are presumptuous in declaring Mr. Paulissen wrong by opposing the Council-Manager form of municipal government. Well, two can play that game. You are wrong.
The truth is that there are serious cons with Council-Manager. The long version can be found at
http://galvestondailynews.com/story/155524/
Some excerpts:
"Just because council-manager is popular doesn’t mean that it’s good. With our current charter, clarified by ordinances already in place, we can be a better-than-average city by taking the best elements of both the strong mayor and city manager forms of government.
...
League City government under a city manager would have less accountability than exists now. A city manager is a bureaucrat not answerable to the people."
I wrote this last year. I served on the Charter Review Committee in 2007. I know what I'm talking about.
I have had a good, if limited, working relationship with our current City Manager, Mr. Jahns. City operations have been running smoothly (with a notable exception) under him because he acts in good faith, he listens, and he doesn't have a big head.
The day we get a City Manager that's the opposite of all those things is when we will be in huge trouble. Ousting a City Manager is one too many steps removed from the voters; at least a mayor in a strong mayor form of government is directly answerable to the citizens every three years, and maybe sooner if there is a recall.
@Chuck DiFalco: I didn't say Tim Paullisen was wrong, I said the voters were not wrong. Big difference Chuck.
Morgan,
I agree with Tim on this one issue. Voters do make mistakes. For example: Lyndon Johnson in 1964 and Richard Nixon in 1972. Also, at least one League City mayor previous to Toni...
I note with humor that the debate about causes of resignations and whether or not deleterious micromanagement is occurring might all be moot. If the city doesn't get this water situ under control, people are going to be calling for sacrificial slaughter of the political kind. http://centerpointeleaguecity.blogspot.com/2011/06/moe-water-woe.html
Chuck,
Rather than cite concerns with the revised charter, why not tell us what you feel would be the best approach? Tweak the existing charter? Go back to the old way of doing business? Do something different?
If I properly understand your concern, the fix is to make sure you do a good job of interviewing and vetting candidates. A truly bad CM will get ousted by a good council. Hence it's up to us the citizens to elect good council. We've been doing pretty good in that regard for a while, hopefully we'll be able to keep it up.
Chuck,I very much respect your intellect and opinion, but we're going to have to agree to disagree on which form of government will serve us best.
BHL brings up the point that has me concerned: if we start flip-flopping with Charter changes, might that not affect our bond ratings? Some bankers might consider multiple Charter changes as a town that isn't capable of governing itself. Like La Marque. They can't even decipher their own charter.
I realize that many smart and well meaning people favor the council (a.k.a. city) manager form of government. Its clear structure, its firewall between politicians and civil servants, and its supreme focus on professionalism comforts them.
BHL, I think you completely misunderstand my reservations. The council manager form of government is by definition undemocratic. It suffers from two serious flaws. First, it centralizes power. Second, the power center (city manager) is not elected. The strong mayor form only suffers from the first, and thus is only marginally better. Liberty is sacrificed for comfort.
The form of government League City had before 2010 was not "strong mayor." The proper terminology is "weak mayor-council." Power was split between mayor, city council, and staff. The division of authority in three parts reflects the US Constitution, which vests federal power among the President, Congress, and the Judiciary. The reason why we didn't have strong mayor before 2010 was that the mayor could not unilaterally fire the city administrator, nor could appoint board members without council's consent.
As far as bond issues go with changing the charter again, I think that's the least of our worries. I don't know when we'll get our first power hungry, uncivil city manager. It could be 20 weeks or 20 years. The first bad one will be written off as a bad choice. It won't be until the second bad one that many people start thinking about changing form of government instead of just who's doing the governing.
Why are you debating whether the Charter should have been changed? That debate is over and the Charter was amended--end of argument until the next Charter revision is proposed.
The problem here is that the people of League City approved changing the City to Council/Manager then promptly elected a Mayor who had announced he didn't support that change and didn't want to follow the law. Either the Mayor is going to follow the law and stop trying to intervene in the daily operation of the City or he is going to drive off every competent professional who might be interested in working for the City.
Mr. Jahns is right, and I don't blame him for resigning. The Mayor and Council set policy and budget, and the City Manager executes that policy within the confines of the budget. Having the Mayor and Council sit in on or insist on meetings to discuss how the policy is to be implemented is not acceptable.
Chuck,
From what I gather your issue is philosophical regarding the overall democratic process (or lack thereof) regarding a city manager structure. I don't know why you referred to a stong mayor. We never had a strong mayor form of govt. We had an unique hybrid which resulted in all kinds of issues and inabilities to get anything done. It sounds like you prefer the old way.
My take is that the worst case scenario is where we have either a total incompetant or a total-on-the-take Manager AND an do-nothing city council.
A do-nothing council wouldn't last long given that two or three members are up for election every year, whereas if we were strong mayor, we could be stuck with garbage (e.g. trashgate) for three years.
Clearly, small towns are not for you as the city manager structure is highly popular among such towns. Whether you like it or not, it is perfectly legal. May I remind you that every city, state, and the federal government has people running various departments making managerial decisions at various levels. I would posit that as a city, we are operating at a different level than the fed govt and unless you want full time paid council members (ala congress) to make every single decision and vote on every single line item expenditure, my advice would be to get over it and hold your elected officials responsible for ensuring that the city manager is doing a good job.
Mr. Ellis:
(1) The debate is over, until it's not. Clearly, the issue over form of government is over for the near future. I think it will take two bad city managers in a row for the debate to gain traction. Debate now sets the stage for some indefinite future situation.
I have been in this town long enough to witness, participate in, and change multiple indefinite future events.
(2) Your accusation that Mr. Paulissen did not and/or does not want to follow the law is both serious and unfounded. Since you're the accuser, you should provide evidence of such unlawfulness, including specific statements and/or actions, and how same violate a specific city charter clause or ordinance.
(3) How do you know that "Mayor and Council sit in on or insist on meetings to discuss how the policy is to be implemented"? Please make public such information, as I have read and heard extensively, and have recognized no such thing. The closest I have seen is in the Galveston County Daily News, June 16, p. 3, where "Mayor Tim Paulissen...proposed to discuss personnel actions." The city charter states that the city manager can "Appoint, suspend, or remove any employee of the city..." It doesn't take a rocket scientist, English professor, or lawyer to know that "propose to discuss" is not the same as "appoint, suspend, or remove." However, if you have hidden evidence, please enlighten the rest of us.
(4) Mayor Paulissen must work with the city manager simply because he has no choice. That doesn't mean that he or anybody else must like it.
BHL,
You're still not hitting on all cylinders.
(1) You're right about my philisophical reservations about the city manager form of government. I predict that sometime this decade, philisophy will become reality in League City. There are other cities in Galveston County that struggle with the city manager form of government: http://galvestondailynews.com/story/233454/
(2) League City is not stuck with a mayor for any length of time. La Marque just recalled theirs. Last year, LC voters made it "not impossible" to do the same by changing the charter (Proposition 2).
(3) I referred to the "strong mayor" form of government because it is a common choice in municipal governments. Example: a small town called Houston, Texas. Strong mayor was actively discussed in the LC Charter Review Committee in 2007. Also, contrasting the differences between the various forms, like I did, serves to understand them all.
(4) How do you know that small towns are "clearly" not for me? Do you think if there's one thing I don't like, I don't like the whole thing? I prefer to change for the better, if and when the opportunity presents itself. For example, the new League City Economic Development Plan. If anybody knows me, he/she knows that my top municipal issue for the past 12 years have been land use. More accurate is the statement that a town without zoning is not for me.
(5) I don't have to get over anything, particularly if I think it involves injustice and/or an offense against American ideals.
Hey Chuck, Thaks for the tune-up. As for not hitting on all cylinders you said, "a small town called Houston, Texas." The last time Houston was a small town was just before the Galveston storm.
Yea Mayor recall. Geraldine Sam was off the deep-end, making it easy. I don't think Herr Jerr would have been recalled under the new charter, but that's my opinion.
You may call our current system an offense against American Ideals, but I and many LC citizens disagree with you as evidenced by two elections ago. Let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.
I'm moving forward. Your move is your call.
BHL,
As far as my remark about Houston being a small town, that was a joke. Ok, not one of my better ones. I much better like the one about the disease that only mayors and city council members get: "Big projectitis."
Your remark: "I'm moving forward. Your move is your call." implies that I'm not moving forward, whatever that means. I'm light years ahead of you, BHL.
"Voters do make mistakes. For example: Lyndon Johnson in 1964 and Richard Nixon in 1972"
@Chuck, How about Barry O'bama 2008? Richard Nixon, one of the best Presidents. I am glad you did not say Ronald Reagan, if you did, I would have to take umbrage with that statement.
Marc,
You've got to me kidding me! Of all people, you should know how horrible Nixon was. 1970: he imposed wage and price controls on the US economy. 1971: he took the US off the gold standard. 1972: Forrest Gump reported annoying lights in the middle of the night at the Watergate Hotel.
Post a Comment