I posted in the Ford Center/NCAA Tournament thread about how that particular thread showed beautifully why we need a strong-mayor form of municipal government in Oklahoma City. It was the perfect time to interject that in the discussion, but to keep any comments from hijacking that thread, I am starting another.

First, it might be a good idea to read my post in the Ford Center/NCAA thread:
http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?p=16428#post16428

As many of you know, the city of Dallas is in the middle of this political question as I type. The ballot initiative to create a strong-mayor form of government in Dallas is set for May 7th. It has created some strange bedfellows in Dallas politics both for and against. A certain group of Dallas business wants the status quo. Another group of business sides with Mayor Miller and wants the strong-mayor. The black community is opposed, but then.....it's all so convoluted as to who is supporting or opposing the initiative and why.

I was forwarded two articles from D Magazine which I think are just excellent. One tells the story of the initiative - who's lining up for and against, etc. The other is a "Publisher Speaks" column which - I think - lays it down beautifully as to why Dallas must have a strong-mayor form of government to move forward.

In my opinion, these two pieces could be written, in many ways, about Oklahoma City! The argument for the strong-mayor is the same one I make here. He even uses many of the same words and analogies I have used here since coming to this forum to argue for the strong-mayor in OKC.

I encourage everyone here who cares about our future - and the need to have a "strong mayor" who can act decisively in the best interests of our city - to read these two pieces from Dallas. It is uncanny how the arguments could be made about this city.

The first is the general article which you should probably read first:
http://www.dmagazine.com//article.asp?articleid=831

The second is the "Publisher Speaks" column and it is a beauty:
http://www.dmagazine.com//article.asp?articleid=822

It's worth the time to read these articles and discuss. As I have said before here in this forum - and in the last post in the NCAA thread - we cannot allow our progress to stagnate. We cannot allow ourselves to think in terms of one big program a decade (MAPS) to move forward. We need a strong-mayor form of government that can deal with the day-to-day details of running a major city. The best thought on our current council-manager form of government is that when everybody is in charge - nobody is in charge. Do we want the next twenty years to be years of waiting for the "other guy" to decide this or that? Everything taking slower than molasses from conception to action? I think not. We need a mayor's office that can act with authority and decisiveness about any number of issues facing our city - all before it goes to 14 boards, 12 committees, 3 citizen groups, 37 council meetings, and everybody then trying to figure out where to go from there. We need a place the buck actually stops!

Geez, are you Mayor Mick's dad?
;)
Seriously, I thought we all debated this already. I still don't understand the logic of this thread; OKC is doing so well, so let's change the way it works to match the way it's being done in Tulsa, where things have gone to hell. As for the Dallas situation, I don't think we are in the same situation as they are at all.
As for the "buck stops here," didn't it stop with then Mayor Ron Norick and City Manager Don Bown when MAPS hit a rough patch? New leadership came in and MAPS got righted.
I just don't get this whole argument.

My biggest issue is that the current city council really represents the many different communities of OKC. For example, the Northeast side would probably have no voice in anything if not for Willa Johnson. Although I agree with her on nothing, she does serve an important purpose.

We've debated this already? If we did - I guess I missed it. Or, we have different ideas of the word, "debate."

Tulsa's having a strong-mayor has nothing to do with their problems - none. In fact, the accountability is what is allowing Tulsa to attempt to recall the people responsible for what some believe to be wrong-headed leadership.

Yes, the situation in Dallas is VERY similar. Did you bother to read the articles I linked to? So much of what was said about council-manager holding them back could be said about Oklahoma City.

NO. I think the whole MAPS thing was a success in spite of and not because of our form of government. The construction woes, the slowness that permeated the whole thing, the confusion as to who can do what- and when, all of it was a fiasco. Where DOES the buck stop? The city manager's office? But wait, the city manager serves at the pleasure of the council; hence the need to please the horseshoe. The mayor? He has little to no power and is just another council member with a ceremonial job that allows him - or her - to act as a cheerleader for the city. He also has a "bully pulpit" simply because he has the "Mayor" tagged before his name.

You point to Tulsa where their problems don't have anything at all to do with form-of-government. I could point you to city after city after city who operate with full-time strong-mayor leadership. Is it a be all, end all? NO. Would there be problems? Of course. Does that have anything to do with what Oklahoma City or Dallas should do? Absolutely not.

Let me give you an example. On your "DowntownGuy" blog (which I enjoy) you posted the other day (and promptly took down) several things that you felt needed to be done to make things better for the arrival of the NCAA tourney. I liked your ideas a lot. Though, to be honest, I agreed with one of the comments that the ideas should have been advanced weeks or months earlier and not the day the tourney opened. But, the ideas were sound. Now - let's say you were the mayor of Oklahoma City. Under our current system, the mayor could have read your list and agreed, but as far as authority - that's about all. A mayor in a "strong-mayor" form of government could have got on the telephone and ordered those things to happen and chastised the agencies responsible for not having thought ahead. He would have had the authority under the city charter to ACT at the last minute and right a lot of the perceived wrongs you listed on your blog. By the way, I think you made a mistake by removing your post. I think that's a no-no in the blogosphere. A post following the original to explain yourself, apologize, etc. would have been fine. But to remove it? It had some good ideas! While the anonymous comment was a good one, it shouldn't have prompted the removal of your post but merely an addendum.

I am not Mick's father and, in fact, many here could tell you that I have been very critical of the mayor on several issues. This isn't about Mick Cornett. I don't even know if he'd want the job if the job description changed to a full-time administrator/mayor. It's not about the current situation, and it has little to do with the past. We've shown our ability to make things happen in these huge decade long projects. A "strong-mayor" system would take us FROM HERE and offer leadership in a day-to-day fashion. Things like this don't happen overnight anyway, so we're talking power for a future mayor. To keep what little power anyone has now out of the hands of the voters, in the office of a bureaucrat, at the mercy of a part-time city council, is not in the best interest of this city.

I would like to see a reasoned debate on this issue. Not simple "look at Tulsa" kind of remarks. Why not a good healthy examination of this issue? Oklahoma City is worth it.

By the way, Midtowner....just saw your post about Willa Johnson. Actually, she wouldn't lose any power under many strong-mayor forms of government. There is still a need for councilmembers, and the ward-based system works fine.

on edit: If anybody plans to respond, at least read the "Publisher Speaks" column from D MAGAZINE:
www.dmagazine.com//article.asp?articleid=822&* I think the comparisons to where we are today in Oklahoma City are uncanny! I can't help but think "DowntownGuy" didn't read it. I also am one of those that think if we rest on our laurels of MAPS and Bricktown ("everything is going great!") we are missing the boat. Everything is NOT great. There are many issues in this city that need to be addressed, but the lack of clearcut authority drags us down and makes doing anything very slow and reactionary versus vigorous and visionary.

My biggest issue is that the current city council really represents the many different communities of OKC. For example, the Northeast side would probably have no voice in anything if not for Willa Johnson. Although I agree with her on nothing, she does serve an important purpose.

I couldn't have said it better myself. If we have a strong mayor form of government, parts of town like the east side have little voice.

I personally like the present form of government, at least for now.


Yes, the representative style council system does set up road blocks to getting projects accomplished quickly, but that isn't always a bad thing. Had our council not spent as much time on MAPS as it did, it probably wouldn't have turned out as good. Had we rushed into building the Bricktown canal, it probably wouldn't have given Moshe Tal enough time to sell the council on his idea of creating one extended canal at the same elevation, instead of 3 separate canals at different elevations separated by waterfalls, as was originally planned.

-------------
xrayman, I will say that I agree with you on one thing...our mayor right now really has no power whatsoever. He's just 1 vote in the horseshoe...not much different from a typical council person. You may be right in wanting to give the mayor more power. Problem is, I still want to keep the ward system too, if that would be possible, so every region in the metro can be represented.

Combine both systems, and I think you'd have an awesome form of city government.

To deal with "problem" mayors, we could require a supermajority of council members (6 of 8 council members, or 75%) voting to recall a mayor.

Something more in line with the federal system might work better. The Congress (Council) could propose resolutions and vote on them, then the mayor could approve or veto them. To overturn a veto, the council would need a 75% supermajority (6 of 8 council members).
The mayor could also propose legislation, just like the president of the US.

I haven't read your links yet, but I will.

--------
Midtowner, I'd be interested to hear what you'd think of a combined strong mayor/council system, where the mayor has more power than 1 vote, but the wards are still represented.

By the way, for the previous "debate" on this topic, see: http://www.okctalk.com/t2179-time-to-dump-our-antiquated-municipal-government.html

There are 20+ posts on this issue at that thread.

I agree, Patrick. That's why in my last post I wrote:
"By the way, Midtowner....just saw your post about Willa Johnson. Actually, she wouldn't lose any power under many strong-mayor forms of government. There is still a need for councilmembers, and the ward-based system works fine."

I hope many do read the links from D Magazine and think about it. If we act NOW, we can prevent the stagnation that has befallen Dallas. They too have achieved great things in "spurts" without full-time leadership that is responsible and accountable. The line "Nothing great ever happens by committee" is so true. Effective leadership comes from having a leader and not several leaders waiting for the other leaders to lead - while in the meantime, nobody is led. We need a leader with the authority to lead!!

You're mention of "full-time" leadership caught my eye. I still have problems with our mayor being a part time position. Any organization needs a "full-time" CEO, and the city is no exception. Increasing the pay of our mayor to match most CEO's, and making it a full-time position needs to be considered. Of course, under a strong-mayor form of government this might be more of a possiblity.

xrayman,

I don't agree with your premise that the people in OKC don't hold their leaders accountable. I would say that if you asked your average "man on the street" who ran the city government, they would simply reply "Duh, the mayor" (not based on any research or data, this is just my assumption that I think is fairly safe).

The fact is that the current system with the city manager allows for a more professional delivery of city services. City Managers are professionals that have often "come up through the ranks". I guarantee you, the City Manager for Oklahoma City (although I don't know them) most certainly has a successful track record in similar or smaller sized cities.

I did interview the City Manager for the City of Edmond at one point when I was working on the UCO newscast. I've also interviewed their Mayor. They both had important jobs, I believe the positions were basically the same. Naifeh did accomplish things for the city of Edmond. For example, she is largely responsible for the new look the city has developed over the last few years utilizing the services of their new full time "urban forrester" and a slew of maintenance staff. I found it to be a pretty darned effective way of running things.

It's clear than an intelligent argument can be made for either system. It's obvious that they both have their pros and cons. I figure if I were arguing your side of the issue, I'd suggest that the City Manager system is more of a status que system, while the "Strong Mayor" system forces quick and noticable progress.

I feel that the city has really been thriving (at least recently) under the current system. I also don't see the City Council voting to diminish themselves. Due to those facts, I really believe that this is a discussion that is academic at best.


Each system obviously has its pros and cons.

(yes, I cross-posted this, but I think it works better in this thread than in the one I originally posted it in)

You're mention of "full-time" leadership caught my eye. I still have problems with our mayor being a part time position. Any organization needs a "full-time" CEO, and the city is no exception. Increasing the pay of our mayor to match most CEO's, and making it a full-time position needs to be considered. Of course, under a strong-mayor form of government this might be more of a possiblity.

That's one thing I agree with, xrayman. I also think we need a full-time mayor that's empowered more. We've been lucky in that our previous and current mayors have enjoyed a deference from council members to spearhead MAPS and MAPS for Kids, but that may not always be the case.

xray, I apologize if I offended with the "brother" line. It was only meant as a joke. I do appreciate you contributing thought provoking topics to this forum and I'll continue to read with interest