Former Haines Borough Mayor Fred Shields approached me a few weeks ago when I was circulating a ballot petition to reduce the amount of the senior citizen property tax exemption.
“You know that’s not proper for you to do that,” Shields said to me, intimating that a mayor should not involve himself in partisan politics.
It’s an opinion persistent among some residents that mayors shouldn’t involve themselves in the politics of local issues. I believe that opinion is unfounded, unsupported by local laws and largely an impression fostered by former mayors who found it more convenient to shield their personal politics from public view.
The argument, in part, is that because the office of mayor is a singular position, and the mayor serves all residents, taking partisan positions separates the mayor from some of the people he’s charged to represent.
I disagree with that argument for several reasons. For the sake of objectivity and background, here’s how Haines Borough describes the mayor’s role:
“2.16.010 Mayor as executive.
A. The executive power of the borough is vested in the mayor. The mayor shall preside at assembly meetings, act as ceremonial head of the borough, and sign documents on the borough’s behalf upon assembly authorization.
B. The mayor shall:
1. Review and make recommendations for amendments to the annual budget and capital improvement program prior to their submission to the assembly,
2. Execute other powers and duties specified in AS 29 or lawfully prescribed by the assembly,
3. Act as ex officio chair of the various boards and commissions when required.
C. The mayor may take part in the matters before the assembly but may not vote except in the case of a tie.”
The code goes on to delineate the mayor’s veto powers but says nothing else about the mayor’s authority or how it should be used.
Before I ran for mayor, I had a conversation with then-Mayor Doug Olerud about the mayor’s job. “You know when you’re mayor,” Olerud said to me, “you can’t be Tom Morphet.”
Like Shields, Olerud said in so many words – ones repeated to me by members of the public at my first meetings as mayor – that the mayor should not be an advocate, but instead should place himself above the fray, distancing himself from the messy work of decision-making and policy-setting.
Under this model, the mayor should be a “guiding hand,” helping the assembly come to the best decisions for the community, but taking a minimal part in the actual decision-making.
Borough code, however, is more ambiguous on this question, saying only that the mayor “may take part in the matters before the assembly but may not vote except in the way of a tie.” Obviously, to make an informed, tie-breaking vote, the code implies that the mayor should have an opinion ready on all matters before the assembly.
I subscribe to the idea that when it comes to solving difficult problems, the involvement of more brains generally brings a better result. As mayors are typically long-time residents with a broad knowledge of the community and its issues, the mayor’s thinking is important, if not crucial to assembly discussion.
We certainly don’t expect our nation’s president to be “above politics.” Nor do we seek neutrality from Alaska’s governor. Why should our mayor be? What purpose does that serve?
Mayors Shields and Olerud held strong opinions about certain issues that came before the borough, and they expressed them when they felt it necessary. Former Mayor Jan Hill, as savvy a politician as our town has seen, was our most reticent mayor, ostensibly adhering to the logic that in politics, every stated opinion creates one or more enemies.
(A politician who voices no opinions enjoys the luxury of making no enemies, a great strategy if one’s only goal is to get re-elected. Such a leader can cast themselves as a friend to all people and all points of view, a dodge satirized by the expression, “I feel strongly BOTH ways.”)
After encountering citizens upset by my overt politics – I like to think of my politics as transparent – I chatted up Dan Humphrey, one of the architects of the Haines Borough, which was formulated by consolidating the former Borough of Haines and the City of Haines in 2002. A hallmark of the new government was that its staff would be directed by a professional manager and that the mayor – who under the previous system of local government hired, fired and managed staff – would be more of a ceremonial position.
Humphrey told me, “We deliberately left the role of the borough mayor vague. We figured the mayor’s role would evolve over time.”
Certainly that didn’t happen. Instead, every mayor has adopted a role in our local government that fits their personality and personal politics.
Mike Case, one of the first mayors of our consolidated borough, once famously said, “The mayor’s job is to do nothing.” Case’s statement was upsetting to residents who felt our government already wasn’t getting enough done, and it was also disingenuous. Events proved Case worked behind the scenes to promote his own agenda and steer decisions he supported.
Short of changing the mayor’s role in borough law, perhaps citizens should abandon debating the question of how the borough’s chief executive should or shouldn’t operate and allow different mayors to mayor differently.
The best approach for citizens may be to simply elect mayors who are honest, forthright and hard-working, and to allow those people to define the mayor’s job for themselves, one term at a time.