Why Council Might Oppose a Strong Mayor

It dilutes their power. Four people in a back room can no longer cut deals to support each other because of the ever-present possibility of a mayoral veto. Remember, at least 4 members of City Council must have approved all of the (now former) City Manager's past actions and behavior or they would have stopped it with a 4 to 3 vote. The City Manager position is a buffer between the people and their elected representatives and takes the heat for City Council decisions because he implements them on their behalf.

A Strong Mayor directly elected by the people is more responsive to the needs of the people and would oppose City Council when necessary. A City Manager is a highly-compensated employee of City Council, and the people are paying the bill.

Some people claim that having a City Manager causes the government to be "run like a business." Assuming this is desirable, shouldn't the City Manager have some real-world experience actually running a business? The 1975 employment application of our former City Manager shows he had never held a job in the real world, much less run a business. His only experience in generating income is through raising taxes, not in improving services or efficiency. An appointed official has far less incentive to keep the citizens happy than he does in keeping the people who hired him happy. Our former City Manager's $100,000+ annual compensation was derived solely from keeping 3 of the 7 members of City Council happy since it takes a minimum of 5 votes to remove a City Manager from office. Yes, you read this right. The City Manager must keep precisely 3 out of 34,000+ people happy to keep his job. This would be an approval rating of .0009%.

Recently a City Council member stated in the newspaper that it takes voters four years to remove a mayor but City Council could do it immediately. Technically true, except City Council has never removed a City Manager in the past twenty seven years.

Four of seven Council members wanted to remove the former City Manager but were being blocked by the other three, one of which is the author of this statement. She has stated that she will never vote to remove the (now former) City Manager. No? Not even if he was convicted of a crime?

What this Council Member also said, although she may not have intended to say it, is that without a recall drive it can take up to four years for the voters to remove City Council! Two years to remove the three At-Large members and another two years to remove the four ward members. Since it takes five members of City Council to force the removal of a City Manager, it also can take up to four years for the voters to replace enough Council members to assure the City Manager can be removed. If citizens want to immediately remove a Strong Mayor, all it takes is one set of recall petitions. If citizens want to immediately remove City Council, all it takes are seven sets of recall petitions.

The next proposed Charter amendment may be to increase the number of Council members from 7 to 9, creating a fifth ward. Smaller wards means better representation for our neighborhoods. More Council members means the power of the existing 7 members is further diluted by the addition of 2 totally new people.

Non-charter cities in Ohio are required by law to increase their Council size from 7 to 9 when their population reaches 25,000. The 1980 census showed Brunswick's population as 28,104. Our 2001 count is 34,094. Your neighborhood has been under-represented for over two decades. A larger City Council coupled with a City Manager will allow the existing Council members to retain their power. A Strong Mayor immediately switches the balance of power back to the people of Brunswick.