Syracuse voters should oppose a change in government form
Text 
No comments [ Add Comment ]By De Lore W. Thurgood
Guest commentary
O
n Oct. 10, 2006, four members of the Syracuse City Council stripped Mayor Fred Panucci of his CEO powers and established a city-manager form of government. This move transferred the executive powers of Syracuse to the city council, and in effect reduced the mayor's executive role to that of a figurehead mayor. The change was made despite pleas from a number of citizens to let the people decide the issue at the polls.
Because of this change, a group of residents initiated a citizens' petition to get it reversed. Within a few days after the council was informed of the petition, the council drafted a two-page letter and delivered it to the doorsteps of the residents.
The letter attempted to justify reasons for councilmembers' actions. Reasons given were:
* align city ordinances with state law;
* create a full-time executive position to run the day-to-day business of the city; and
* provide better control over taxpayer money by not allowing mistakes like those made in construction of Jensen Nature Park.
In addition, the letter urged citizens not to sign the petition, and if they had already done so and wished to remove their names they could do so by signing a removal form at the city office. In two weeks' time, the petitioners gathered 1,739 signatures, of which 1,675 were certified by the Davis County clerk's office, far exceeding the 944 signatures required by law.
The petitioners again made pleas to the council to reverse its decision and allow the voters to decide the issue, but these pleas also fell on deaf ears.
As a result, the petition sponsors filed action with the 2nd District Court requesting that a temporary restraining order (TRO) be placed on the change until the people had a chance to vote.
On March 1, 2007, the court placed a TRO on the change, ruling that the city council's action was in conflict with the state Constitution because it had not allowed the people to vote on the issue before it became effective.
Soon after the manager form of government was approved, expenditures started occurring in the city that were neither in the budget nor known or approved beforehand by the council. When the mayor asked the council about these expenditures during a council meeting on Dec. 12, 2006, one of the council members responded: "Why didn't you tell us about them, mayor? We didn't know that they had occurred."
These kinds of things continued to happen until the council received an e-mail from the manager in early February requesting approval of $4,000 in moving expenses for a new employee.
After denying the request, the city council learned that a check had already been issued and the employee had cashed it.
It was then that the council met and decided to terminate the manager.
The reason given was that the council was uncomfortable with the manager's financial management and that its members had decided to go in a different direction. They said that the form of government change had nothing to do with his dismissal, but I believe it was the root cause of his termination because none of the council members were aware of the many questionable decisions he had been making until brought to their attention.
When the mayor was relieved of his CEO responsibilities, the council became the executive authority. As it turned out, management by the council became "management by committee" where the council had total authority, but no one on the council would acknowledge nor accept responsibility for decisions the manager had made. From an outsider's point of view, there were no guidelines established or a process set up to review and approve decisions of the manager.
I make this statement because the city manager was making unbudgeted expenditures, promoting employees, giving out-of-cycle pay raises, etc., and when questioned the council members claimed they knew nothing about them. If this is "improved checks and balances," as the council was saying, then I don't know the meaning of the term. At least when the mayor was CEO, we had someone that "we, the people," could hold accountable -- but this wasn't the case under the manager form of government.
In conclusion, I acknowledge that a city manager form of government is used by many communities in Utah and can be an effective way to run their cities.
But with the contentious environment that we have in Syracuse, we need to wait until we have a city council that is better prepared to lead the effort before making any changes. Otherwise, I see nothing but the continuation of finger pointing, infighting and conflicts.
We need a council whose members will work together and support one another -- not one that tries to exclude the mayor and is always looking for an opportunity to berate him.
Accordingly, I recommend that we leave Mayor Panucci in charge.
Please join with me and vote against Citizen's City Referendum No. 1.
Thurgood is a lifelong resident of Syracuse, and a former mayor of the city. He is one of the petition sponsors.
