There is no correlation between having a City Manager instead of a Chief Administrative Officer with having a City Clerk and City Treasurer who are hired instead of elected.
There is absolutely no correlation between a City Manager and denying Civil Service job protection to our Fire Chief and Police Chiefs.
They Say Chaos Exists
The proponents of Measure V speak as if our city management is in total chaos (their word) and that nothing is accomplished in City Hall because there are too many “bosses (i.e. City Council members) exerting their influence over the department heads.
How, then, do they explain getting a new Senior Center built, the Summer Sunset Music Festival, a revamped Fiesta La Ballona, Town Plaza, and countless more examples of departments working together. With a CAO, you have teamwork. With a City Manager, you have a dictator controlling work product, priorities and the flow of information.
If it is true that certain City Council members are exerting too much pressure on department heads, the problem lies with the Council not with organization chart. Policy changes (or new Council members) are in order rather than creating a totally top-heavy system that puts complete autonomy for hiring, firing and all decisions in the hands of one employee.
Our current CAO appears to be overloaded with the responsibilities he currently has. It has taken as long as three or four days to get a response to a telephone call or an e-mail. How long will it take to get a response when he has total control of running the entire city?
Our current CAO has adamantly stated that he will not ask for a salary adjustment commensurate with the added work load. However, he has not indicated that he won’t ask for additional personnel in his department to handle the increased work. How many Deputy City Managers will we need? How much will that cost us?
Is City Hall at a Disadvantage?
The proponents of Measure V would like you to believe that Culver City is at a total disadvantage for hiring personnel because we are not a City Manager-form of government. They will tell you that we cannot get the “best and the brightest” because no one wants to work under a CAO.
If I were a department head, I would be insulted. We have some of the best, most creative people working in Culver City. If a candidate for such a high-level managerial position can’t see the advantages of working directly with other departments and being accountable to City Council (instead of hiding behind the office of the City Manager) then this person probably doesn’t have the vision and creativity that flourishes in Culver City.
What the proponents of Measure V don’t fully explain is that under a City Manager government, the City Manager, and not City Council, has complete and utter control over the hiring and firing of all department heads (save for the Police Chief, Fire Chief and City Attorney). If the City Manager has absolute autonomy over the hiring and firing, how long will it take until he is hiring old friends, instead of the best and the brightest?
The proponents of Measure V cite the turnover of personnel in the past few years as a reason to dump a system that has served us well.
Let’s see – after more than twenty-five years each, our Police Chief, the Director of Parks & Recreation and the CAO chose to retire. The CAO’s replacement left due to illness. The Fire Chief (with nearly ten years’ service) stepped in as CAO and, after eighteen months, left to care for an aging parent. After many years of service, the Director of Public Works (twenty-plus years) and the Transportation Director (sixteen years) chose to retire.
Check Turnover Rate Elsewhere
Yes, there have been departments with a significant turnover problem: specifically, administration, risk management and the Controller’s office. These departments all report directly to the CAO, and not to the City Council.
If you look at cities under City Manager government, what is their turnover rate for department heads? I’ll bet most cities can’t boast of key employees staying twenty to thirty years. The average in industry is, at best, four to six years. Obviously, we’re doing something right with a CAO-form of government.
The proponents of Measure V are concentrating almost entirely on the City Manager component of the new charter. They gloss over other very important issues.
Specifically, they do not explain their rationale for taking away Civil Service protection from our Police Chief and Fire Chief. If Measure V passes, not only will the chiefs lose their Civil Service protection, they would not be offered a contract, as other department heads have. They would become “at-will” employees. This would make it exceedingly difficult to hire the “best and brightest” Police Chief and Fire Chief. What would it do to department morale?
They barely mention replacing elected officials (City Clerk and City Treasurer) with employees hired by the City Manager.
They seldom mention the Ethics and Conflict of Interest provisions that have been added to the new charter. These are not organizational problems. These are policy matters that have been addressed by ordinances and policies already in place, approved by the City Council.
The proponents of Measure V would have you believe that just because Culver City’s charter is over fifty years old, it is archaic. The U.S. Constitution is over two hundred years old. I haven’t heard of anyone wanting to replace it; changing it so that the Secretaries of the Departments in Washington reporting to the Chief of Staff of the White House, instead of reporting to the President and Congress.
Parts of the City Charter do need fixing. But there are parts that continue to work well. Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. Measure V is not the answer.
Susan Deen, an accountant, is a veteran community activist.