There’s a fundamental problem with our form of local government: Residents don’t understand who’s in charge.
Consider this statement Haines Borough Assembly candidate Gabe Thomas made to KHNS this week:
“I think the Assembly’s main responsibility is to set the budget. It’s not to direct the manager in any other way, besides give her the budget, let her review the budget and try to make the changes accordingly.”
Now look in Haines Borough Code at the first two sentences under the heading “duties of the manager,” section 2.20.0202.
“The manager works closely with the mayor, borough assembly, borough officers, department heads, committees, commissions and the public. The position is responsible for carrying out the administration of borough government and duties as directed by the borough assembly.”
This is not a power-sharing relationship between the manager and assembly. By intent of code, the assembly is the boss and the manager is the assembly’s employee.
This is not an aberration, nor a misinterpretation. The duties of a manager, in an assembly-manager government like ours, are laid out in Alaska State Law, section 29.20.490, “to supervise enforcement of municipal laws and carry out the directives of the governing body.”
Still, many people like candidate Thomas get this basic fact wrong. Why?
Partly, the misunderstanding is due to the title “manager.” People assume the manager manages the government, when in fact, the title “manager” in this usage refers to the person who manages the borough staff.
You often hear we have a “manager form of government” instead of a “strong mayor form of government” we had under the City of Haines, previous to the consolidation of the City of Haines and Haines Borough in 2002.
That’s correct. Under a “strong mayor” government, the mayor manages the staff and hires department heads. Under the “manager form of government” the manager hires department heads and manages the staff. In both forms of government, the assembly leads. It sets the agenda, creates policies and directs the municipality.
(Nationwide, many municipalities switched to the manager form in the 20th century, partly to keep management professional and in response to corrupt mayors who often stacked the staff with incompetent friends.)
Question: So why doesn’t the assembly just lead? And why does the manager so often seem like the one in charge?
Answer: By the nature of its composition and by law, assembly power is divided and can’t be mustered quickly.
The votes of four assembly members are required for the assembly to do anything, including to give direction to the manager. Furthermore, outside of official meetings, the Alaska Open Meetings Act prohibits an assembly member from speaking to more than two other members about a single topic.
For this reason, a motivated manager can run several laps on an issue before the assembly even gets its shoes on. Also, assembly members must find their livelihood outside the government, so the manager serves as the assembly’s employee and representative on a day-to-day basis. But as a practical matter, the “boss” in this relationship is not around most of the time, so to the public, the manager is in charge. For this same reason, a motivated manager has great latitude to act first, putting the assembly into a defensive or reactive position.
Also, in politics, government and life in general, the person in charge is often the person who takes charge. A motivated manager who is not afraid to pursue their own political agenda holds tremendous virtual power by controlling both the staff and the borough’s information.
Question: How can assembly members better fill their role as borough leaders?
Answer: This is a great question. Many assembly members are elected not understanding even the basics of how the borough works or the borough code’s 600 pages of laws. At meetings they can be quickly swamped by the items that the mayor, manager or other staffers place on the agenda, and by the information the manager and staff provide. (Current code even lacks a provision for assembly members to place an item on a meeting agenda.)
There have been limited efforts by recent assemblies to “set their priorities” or “come up with strategic plan” that would effectively guide assembly action and direct the manager. (In December 2016, the assembly drew up its priorities, but the list was quickly forgotten. An effort again was attempted in spring 2018, but with the same result.)
Further, there is a committee process in place the assembly uses to vet ideas.
In my opinion, a big step in the right direction would a required, annual goal-setting meeting (immediately following an assembly election) aimed at identifying areas of agreement among assembly members, and a list of goals to pursue. The list of goals needs to be re-visited monthly – or at least quarterly – to keep the assembly on track.
Otherwise, the agendas of the manager, or of the staff, or of the mayor or of someone else will lead the borough, while the assembly will serve in a kind of reactive, advisory role, or as a college debate society, discussing theories and minutiae.