I’m not sure how it all happened but earlier this year I found myself feverishly debating the ChangeDecatur proposal that was on the February 5th ballot. I even went a few rounds on blogDecatur with Steve Daniels, a ChangeDecatur leader and spokesman. I was against the change to a commission form of government but not necessarily against the idea of a strong mayor. The change to a commission form seemed undesirable by pretty much everyone involved; it was intended to be a temporary change until a transition to strong mayor could be made later – I felt it was an unnecessary step, hence my opposition. On the day of the election my stomach was tied in knots waiting for the outcome; I felt I had some personal connection to the whole “thing”. I was relieved when the proposal failed but not completely satisfied with the current system.
In theory the council/manager form of government is supposed to be non-partisan, and “less prone to corruption” than other forms of city government. However, we’ve grown accustomed to many behind the door deals in the city manager’s office that often times leaves public input or awareness out. We’ve also witnessed council members seemingly left in the dark as to how management of the city is being carried out, and an overall sense, that nobody has their hands on the wheel and the ship is veering off course. Important decisions are constantly being put on the back burner. Often times there isn’t enough information provided by the city manager to the council, or the opposite occurs, and there’s an information overload that overwhelms the council, so much so, that they can’t make a confident decision about anything. I’ve always been in the camp that maybe it’s just a personnel problem but maybe it is the system.
Now that mayor Osborne has stepped down we’ve seen a quicker, swifter council led by Mayor Carrigan. As soon as there’s a sense that a proposal has four votes, it’s voted on and approved. However, the more efficient approach has led to some bone-headed decisions, like a water rate increase that is higher than what was initially proposed and the rather lamely, hastily debated “hybrid” ballot question that was kicked the curb after two brief “study sessions”. It makes me wonder if the proposal was a load of baloney from the start just to squash ChangeDecatur’s efforts. I don’t know. Maybe some of the blame is the community. Maybe we should get more vocal. Maybe I should have done what the council has repeatedly said we citizens have the right to do, and stepped up to the podium and pleaded my case for placing the question on the April 2009th ballot, but I doubt it would have made any difference.
At any rate, I’m beginning to concur, it’s time for change in a major way.
The best way for change is to vote out council members that are “bad.” It’s the likes of Carrigan, Edwards and Caukins that are the people that have caused problems and made things worse for Decatur. Laegeler (sp?) is THE MOST level-headed, intelligent council member, followed closely by McElroy. I’m on the fence concerning Stockard.
I do think the best bet is to elect new blood. This bunch has been a train wreck. I do like Stockard though, I haven’t agreed with every vote she’s ever cast, but she seems to ask the same questions that I’m usually thinking during the meetings.
Caulkins, Edwards and Carrigan express my opinions on issues more often and more closely than any of the council so why would I want to them out? I do like and respect McElroy, Stockard and Laegeler but why in the heck would I want to vote out those who have been the most vocal regarding the issues that I care about most about and had the courage to speak up – against the tide – on many issues that I thought needed to be spoken up on and at least questioned publically?
Ray you sound like a guy who doesn’t want anyone in office who questions anything regarding the status quo…. Any chance are you an “insider” who benefits from the current power structure? (I do not mean that to be mean or nasty – a just straight out question)
In fact those are the three who voted FOR the question Kris is discussing. Why would she want to vote against them if she thought this question should have been put before the voters?
I am not an “insider.” Edwards is nothing more than a grandstander — he talks and asks questions without looking at the facts in front of him. He comes off as someone who has to say something just to say something. The same is true with Caulkins — he asks dumb questions before thinking them through. Again, he talks just to hear his own voice. Carrigan is just plain stupid-sounding. Again, he asks stupid questions. Laegeler doesn’t say much until he has thought something through, then either asks an appropriate question and/or make an on-point statement. The same is true with McElroy.
Like I said, I’m not an “insider.” I just find it very difficult to respect anything that the three I don’t care for say.
This is interesting discussion. It’s hard to tell who is the problem, I guess it just depends on how you see the current system. To those who are in favor of the current system, they’d probably point out Caulkins and Edwards as pesky annoyances. To those who want change, they’d pick Foster, McElroy and Laegeler as status quoers. I’m not worried about Carrigan because he’s not running again.
Since it’s hard to tell who the problem is, I think it’s time to get new people with new ideas on the council. Yes, McElroy and Leageler are quiet and don’t cause much trouble but what original ideas have they come up with to help the city? What great ideas has anybody on that council come up with to move the city forward? What great things has our city manager(s) in the past done? With the best people, even the worst system will serve us well; with the wrong people, the best system won’t help us.
I am disappointed in all those who voted against putting the question on the ballot and I won’t forget their votes come election day! They can’t take THAT vote away from me!
Well, those who voted against it aren’t up for election this time…..
Ray, they have often asked questions I had. I have a strong belief that the stupid question is one you did not ask. I also think it benefits the public and creates trust in government when questions are asked publically. I do not think the behind the scenes – asking prior to council is the best policy. If they have the question some of the public also probably does too. That is what oversight is all about. And you may have noticed that “board of directors” corporate model has failed in oversight in the recent mortage crisis as well….
I was especially disturbed by the facts that came out in the recent discussion near the end of the last council meeting regarding Decatur’s policy on water main extentions. The exchange went as follows:
City staff – (Marley I think): It is rare for a city to extend water mains in rural unincorporated parts of the city. No other city that I investigated did this. I could not find another that does it like Decatur.
Laegeler: So who does it?
Marley: the private developer.
this HUGE expense has not been questioned before now under the current attitute of “just trust the professionals” and don’t micromanage.
oh, the final comment by councilman Laegeler was:
“The plan is changing going to encourage redevelopment within the community rather than expansion. A new water main I would hardly endorse”
I applaud him for this but it seems to me like we have already extended water mains in all directions!! The horse is out of the barn and out of the pasture too….
Yeah, the water main thing struck me as odd too. It was revealed that no other city, that anyone knows of anyway in Central Illinois, is doing what Decatur is doing in regards to water.
I hadn’t realized it but none of those who voted against the ballot question are up for re-election. Uhm…one wonders if they were, would their vote be any different…probably not but…
My personal opinion is that those opposed to ANY kind of change will try to use the “change” issue to get those out who at least want to let people vote on it. And those same council people are the ones want the issues discussed in public.
I believe there is currently a choreographed effort to remove those who don’t just go along to get along and spout the “corporate line”. I have heard multiple people recite the identical comments. And I do not believe this was an original thought they all had.
Sue, sometimes I get that feeling too. I think there is a concerted effort to squash change of any kind by some. I think a lot of people are put off by the ChangeDecatur crowd, I know I was last year, but if we can get some more level-headed people behind the change (I guess that would count me out, lol) maybe people wouldn’t be so afraid of it.
There’s a lot of political posturing going on from both sides instead of any real dialog. That’s the hardest change to make!
I agree somewhat – I do not like the personal attacks from EITHER side. Good people truly see issues differently sometimes. But I also know that the Change decatur side was trying from the get go to get debates going on it. Steve Daniels approached me as a CONO board member very early on the whole process to see if CONO – which cannot per bylaws endorse or oppose any candidate or political initiative like this – They asked if CONO would be willing to sponser a debate – be the host so to speak and engage those opposing it. It was the opponents who were not in anyway willing to debate it/ discuss it. I also really think from what I have seen of Steve that he has been unfairly demonized. I have been reading Matthews blog from way back when it was the Jackson files and I have been reading Steve Daniels on change Decatur and Macon County Shared vision almost as long. In my opinion the issues Steve and those groups have brought up in the blogs are reasonable questions our government should be will to answer and discuss. I have never been a part of Shared Vision and do not agree with their every opinion but I know that are a reasonable group of caring citizens many small business people that they have tried and tried to present reasonable ideas/suggestion to our council and have been virtually ignored and even ridiculed. Ridiculed for ideas like daring to say the city should do what it can to help the Decatur school district- some tried to act like this was the stupidist suggestion they had ever heard. Like the didn’t understand that city council doesn’t run the schools. I think we have a system in place that relies to much on an “old boy network”. Not that any of these people are bad people it is just that listen to each other and those they know and nobody else gets heard.
one other thing – the same unresponsiveness that the Shared Vision folks were experiencing over and over was what many of the neighborhood folks I know were running into. How many times to keep banging your head on the same wall before you try something different?
I don’t care what anyone says the current government is extremely unresponsive to average citizens I have seen it over and over with people who DO know how to call their representatives. Saying they don’t is a straight out arrogant lie. The council report to the people but none has a clear responsiblilty over any particular duty or area they are just part time low paid general overseers and the city workers report to manager who has absolutely nothing in his job description that requires him to pay any attention to the citizens that pay his salary. And unless I see real and lasting change I will continue to support any reasonable change that I see as a possible good shake up of the status quo. My personal opinion is that this form is more easily corruptible because it is more handled behind closed doors and it is less accountable to the voters. I believe the debates discussion give and take right out in the public view show us to be a healthy caring robust community and keep corruption at bay (in any form)
Oh well, you’ve heard all this a 1000 times by now!! ;-}
I have a different view of ChangeDecatur now than I did several months ago. I remember listening to that awful debate on the radio between the ChangeDecatur leaders and the Chamber side and I was really turned off by some of the comments made by Daniels and Burcham. Now that I’ve become more aware of city politics, I can see their point of view.
I don’t think a change to a strong mayor is going to solve all of our problems but I think it would enable us to tackle them with more force. Plus I’d like to have an alderman (or alderwoman) to represent my area. All this talk about turf wars (I used that argument too at one time against the change) is silly. I think people can be objective enough to do what is right for the entire community while ensuring their district is taken care of. Could there be corruption? Sure. But I wouldn’t use our current system as a glowing example of transparency, efficient governing and truthfulness!
no, form of government will never “solve” all our problems but the more I understand the current manager form the less I like it.
In fact Osborne writes in todays tribune page 15 and explaination of how council/manager form is supposed to work that confirms for me further my dislike of this form:
“because the Mayor and City council are free to hire and fire the Manager there is the mistaken inference that they likewise are authorized to direct his activities and oversee/overide his admnistative decisions.”
NO WAY do I support a form of government where those elected have NO POWER to do anything except hire and fire a manager. According to this the ONLY power they are supposed to have besides that is approve or disapprove his budget.
I believe the much of the general public is VERY misinformed as to how little control those elected have under this form of government….. personally I think if they realized it they would all support change.
I bet most people aren’t even aware that councilmen only make 4000 a year for all that pain and powerlessness
“because the Mayor and City council are free to hire and fire the Manager there is the mistaken inference that they likewise are authorized to direct his activities and oversee/overide his administrative decisions.”
Wait a minute, I thought the council was supposed to call the shots, set the agenda, direct the city manager, etc. etc., I don’t think council members need to be looking over the city’s manager’s shoulder and be overly nit-picky, but we’ve all seen examples where city management was doing something, meeting with someone, without the council’s knowledge. That seems like really ineffective government – the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.