By John Rankin
Normandy Park City Councilmember
SPECIAL TO THE HIGHLINE TIMES

(Editor’s Note: The elected-mayor issue has been a hot topic in Highline. SeaTac has voted several times on changing its form of government to a strong mayor system. At one election, the measure fell short by only nine votes. Burien City Councilmember Jack Block Jr. has also voiced interest in the idea.

SeaTac, Burien and Normandy Park have a city manager/council form of government while Tukwila elects its mayor citywide.

Mr. Rankin’s views are his own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of other Nromandy park council members.)

By now it’s no secret that Normandy Park, long one of the most stable and desirable neighborhoods south of Seattle, is in pretty rough shape. Our most recent city manager has found new employment elsewhere and is departing, leaving behind a city with tenuous finances, substantial litigation liabilities and a bitterly divided citizenry. It didn’t have to end this way, but our system of local government has made it almost inevitable.

Here are three reasons why Normandy Park residents need to change the council/manager system of government to that of an elected Mayor.

The City Manager is Unaccountable

Dissatisfied residents are currently getting a firsthand look at this problem. The city manager works at the pleasure of the council alone, so he is insulated from the citizens. The city council is supposed to set policy, but in reality the professional city manager makes all of the operational decisions, many of which create policies not reviewed or endorsed by the council.

For the average citizen, there appears to be no one at ‘The Buck Stops Here’ desk, and no one to hold responsible for the state of the city or to access for needed change.

City mangers are by their very nature a professional class that move from town to town, always looking for a better situation, and using projects and experience from current and past employment as their resumes. Their interest only coincides with the city’s as long as it continues to provide them with current employment and stepping stones to the next position.

The most recent 1st Ave S project is a text-book example: advocated for by the city manager, it was horribly mismanaged and has left us with a debt we will be paying long into the future; nonetheless, the photos undoubtedly look fabulous in the city manager’s portfolio.

The City Council is Ineffective

The council itself is comprised of seven elected residents who frequently lack broad-based management skills or financial expertise. Elections are frequently uncontested, and those that are rely more on neighborhood networking than real qualifications for office.

Meeting topics are not prioritized based on importance and are often pointless time-consuming exercises that have little to do with conducting the important business of the city. Recently we spent more time hearing from the public about the pros and cons of an illegal rooster than we did discussing a substantial and critical piece of litigation strategy.

Even when the council is doing business, it is unable to focus on serving our citizens first. At a recent council retreat, facing a dire financial forecast of plunging revenues and reserves, two veteran council members listed a new City Hall as their highest priority for the next two-year cycle. Another refused to accept the Finance Department projection unless it was listed down to the last cent and balanced. And nearly all voted not to complete an audio/video feed to our local pubic access channel to help inform the residents, even though it was nearly free.

Finally, as anyone who has attended a council meeting can attest, more time is wasted on squabbles and political by-play than much-needed decision making. The council as it exists in its current context is inefficient, ineffective and frequently powerless to help its citizens.

The Bureaucratic Culture Rules

It often seems that our city is run primarily to benefit its paid staff members, who attend meetings for regional initiatives, seminars, and national conferences that are frequently more about professional development and networking than serving the real needs of our small city. It is costly in time and money, and as our city services decline and finances falter, that time would be better spent working on local city issues.

Also, when new managers are hired, they often bring with them an entire culture of staff and service providers. As well as making meaningful contract negotiations difficult, this also serves to close off the citizens and the council even more. It was recently disclosed that our city manager and the city attorney he brought with him from a previous position had several policy discussions about a very sensitive issue without the council ever being notified of the looming problem.

What We Need

It’s no wonder we are in such difficulty. We need a chief executive who is more concerned about the future of our city than their future career. Although there are always politics involved in any election, changing our system to a full-time, elected Mayor will make sensible choices for our small city more likely than relying on the professional, nomadic city manager class.

A full-time, elected Mayor would provide the residents with a single point of contact for their rants and raves, as well as a time-honored method of demonstrating their support or lack thereof. Appropriately, only the citizens can start this ball rolling, but we need to do it now, before it is truly too late.