If the City of Monroe does not have an administrator in 2009, it will not have one again for a very long time, if ever.
Before the city makes that decision, its aldermen should discuss publicly and decide publicly whether that is the right decision. That call should not be made through a budget proposal by the mayor and his administration.
After all, it was a full City Council that in late 2005 voted unanimously to create the city administrator position. Aldermen also approved the ordinance that established the position, and it later wrote out a job description. Aldermen should decide, with a full vote, whether to reverse a decision made by the council a little less than three years ago.
The 2009 budget submitted this week to the council's Finance and Taxation Committee does not include funding for an administrator. The city has been without an administrator since the council fired Mark Vahlsing in May. Since then, human resources functions have been shared by department managers and, presumably, the mayor has been running the daily operations at City Hall. The city also just entered into a contract with the Monroe Chamber of Commerce and Industry to provide economic development services.
The council had said it was going to wait until 2009 to hire the next administrator. The rationale then was that department leaders could manage in the short-term, and it would be better to wait until the budget process is over before resuming the administrator search.
Mayor Ron Marsh said city government is running just fine without an administrator.
"I think it is working very well, and we have moved down the road," Marsh told the Times.
Marsh also said there simply aren't budget funds available to pay for an administrator.
"You have to say, 'Where is this money coming from?'" Marsh said Tuesday.
Alderman Mark Coplien, who is a member of the Finance and Taxation Committee, agrees. "It's a cut we can make," Coplien said.
It is important to remember why the council originally decided to hire an administrator - a decision made before Marsh was elected mayor in 2006. The council felt then that city government should be run by a full-time, professional manager - someone with expertise and experience in city government operations and economic development. The belief was that such a person could bring efficiencies to city government, and lead the effort to grow the community.
In essence, the decision was made by aldermen to let a full-time professional that was accountable to the council run city government. The part-time mayor would serve more as an ambassador and liaison between the public and council.
Whether that was the right decision or not, that decision should not be undone simply by a budget spreadsheet submitted by the mayor's administration. And it should not be made simply because Marsh is a strong and involved mayor. The next one may not be.
Coplien on Monday said that the city still needs an administrator, "but the logical choice is for next year (2010)."
The reality is that if the city doesn't have an administrator in 2009, it probably won't have one in 2010, either. If the reason for not filling the position truly is economical, who expects the situation to be better in 12 months?
The reality is that eliminating the administrator position now would be a long-term decision. That decision should be made by the full council, independent of a budget vote, and with public input allowed.
Before the city makes that decision, its aldermen should discuss publicly and decide publicly whether that is the right decision. That call should not be made through a budget proposal by the mayor and his administration.
After all, it was a full City Council that in late 2005 voted unanimously to create the city administrator position. Aldermen also approved the ordinance that established the position, and it later wrote out a job description. Aldermen should decide, with a full vote, whether to reverse a decision made by the council a little less than three years ago.
The 2009 budget submitted this week to the council's Finance and Taxation Committee does not include funding for an administrator. The city has been without an administrator since the council fired Mark Vahlsing in May. Since then, human resources functions have been shared by department managers and, presumably, the mayor has been running the daily operations at City Hall. The city also just entered into a contract with the Monroe Chamber of Commerce and Industry to provide economic development services.
The council had said it was going to wait until 2009 to hire the next administrator. The rationale then was that department leaders could manage in the short-term, and it would be better to wait until the budget process is over before resuming the administrator search.
Mayor Ron Marsh said city government is running just fine without an administrator.
"I think it is working very well, and we have moved down the road," Marsh told the Times.
Marsh also said there simply aren't budget funds available to pay for an administrator.
"You have to say, 'Where is this money coming from?'" Marsh said Tuesday.
Alderman Mark Coplien, who is a member of the Finance and Taxation Committee, agrees. "It's a cut we can make," Coplien said.
It is important to remember why the council originally decided to hire an administrator - a decision made before Marsh was elected mayor in 2006. The council felt then that city government should be run by a full-time, professional manager - someone with expertise and experience in city government operations and economic development. The belief was that such a person could bring efficiencies to city government, and lead the effort to grow the community.
In essence, the decision was made by aldermen to let a full-time professional that was accountable to the council run city government. The part-time mayor would serve more as an ambassador and liaison between the public and council.
Whether that was the right decision or not, that decision should not be undone simply by a budget spreadsheet submitted by the mayor's administration. And it should not be made simply because Marsh is a strong and involved mayor. The next one may not be.
Coplien on Monday said that the city still needs an administrator, "but the logical choice is for next year (2010)."
The reality is that if the city doesn't have an administrator in 2009, it probably won't have one in 2010, either. If the reason for not filling the position truly is economical, who expects the situation to be better in 12 months?
The reality is that eliminating the administrator position now would be a long-term decision. That decision should be made by the full council, independent of a budget vote, and with public input allowed.
