To the Editor:

I've heard talk around Federal Way about the possibility of changing our city government to an elected strong mayor form of government rather than having a hired city manager. I'm opposed to that change and I'd like to explain why.

The way I understand it, an elected mayor would take over all the duties of our current city manager, the ceremonial duties of our current mayor and would join mayoral organizations.

The City Council would elect one of its members to be council president who would preside at council meetings. The elected Mayor would be the CEO of the city, supervising all department heads and presenting reports and recommendations to the council.

Presently when we need to hire a city manager, the city council starts a candidate search, usually by hiring an executive search firm. They develop a list of criteria that any candidate must meet. The consultant and council do a thorough review of any candidate's qualifications through interviews and reference checks. It is very much like a corporation searches for a CEO. Because the search is usually nation wide, the successful candidate can bring experience from a variety of other places and a variety of previous duties and responsibilities. The council can fire the city manager if they are not doing their job.

An elected mayor may be someone who has no experience running a city, a business or anything else that gives them the skills for the job. The successful candidate may just be the person who gives the best speeches and make the best impression with the voting public. They are not subject to an interview or reference checks by the voter.

There is very little guarantee that the voters will elect someone who will really be qualified to be the CEO of the city.

They may be great for the ceremonial duties but that's not enough. The elected mayor cannot be fired without a recall election and these are very difficult to hold.

Many well-qualified candidates for mayor would be reluctant to go through a political campaign that includes fund raising, speeches, promises, appearances and more.

An elected mayor would be constantly "running" for reelection. The Mayor would be lobbied by people or organizations who could help or hinder their reelection. Whether the mayor realized it consciously or not, they would make decisions to keep supporters happy.

A city manager can work for the city for many years as long as they do a good job. An elected mayor who is doing a great job can be replaced at election time simply because someone with more charisma runs against them, whether qualified or not.

For cities as large as Seattle or Tacoma, the mayor can hire vice-mayors and other staff to supervise department heads. Federal Way is not large enough to do that. The elected Mayor would be expected to supervise all managers, and I'm not convinced that voters would elect a qualified person. I hope that before any action is taken to make a change like this, everyone will make sure they are not trying to fix something this is not broken.

Donald E. Dennis

Federal Way