Elected officials limited in city role they play

As a young reporter many years ago assigned to covering local government matters, one of the first things I had to learn about was the different ways that these governments operate, since they can function quite differently, depending on the location.

For example, in some places city governments have very little power — most local government functions reside with county governments. In other areas, cities have much more autonomy and counties have less influence. That is the way it is here in Yuma County where county government only holds sway over unincorporated areas (non-city).

Even when you know whether it is city or county government that has more impact, you have to take into account whether that power rests primarily with elected officials or with appointed ones.

The average voter assumes it is the people they elect who run things, and in some cases that is true. But sometimes elected officials have much less day-to-day power than is commonly believed.

That is something I learned early on as a reporter covering local government here in Yuma, and I was reminded of it again this week when Mayor Al Krieger found himself under attack at a Yuma City Council meeting.

Former Yuma mayor Marilyn Young raised some issues at the meeting concerning alleged conflicts of interest involving the mayor. She also complained that Krieger was violating the Yuma City Charter by interfering with city employees — basically trying to control how they do their jobs and trying to remove some of them.

The significance of the second charge involves the form of government we have in the city of Yuma. The city charter — approved by voters — established a city manager form of government here. That means it is really the city administrator who actually controls day-to-day city operations and directs city employees — not the elected mayor or city council members.

The mayor and council — by majority consent of the members — actually only have direction over one city employee, and that is the city administrator. They hire and fire the city administrator and can give him policy direction for the city. After that, the city administrator implements that policy and controls city operations and oversees city employees, essentially without much interference from elected city officials.

It is like a board of directors that hires a chief executive officer to run a company.

This is a hard concept for some voters and some elected officials to accept, especially those who are more familiar with city governments that operate under a “strong mayor” system where elected officials actually do reign over day-to-day city operations.

There is good logic behind the city manager system, however. Supporters note it can result in a more professional public work force that is not influenced by political patronage. Imagine being a city employee where it is possible for any elected official to come and tell you how to do your job — it would be pretty chaotic. And directions could change depending on who wins an election.

The city manager system can be frustrating for elected officials and voters who feel a city administrator isn't doing his or her job properly or the city isn't going in the right direction. Essentially, the only option is to convince a majority of members of the council a new policy direction or administrator is needed.

I have seen local governments that operate both ways, and despite the potential frustration, I think the city manager approach is better than politicizing city operations.

Terry Ross is director of the Yuma Sun's News and Information Center. Email: tross@yumasun.com. Telephone: 539-6870. Facebook: facebook.com/YSTerryRoss. Twitter: twitter.com/@YSTerryRoss.