Text 
No Comments [ Add Comment ]Council's decision went against interests of Syracuse
By Fred PanucciThis Nove
mber, the citizens of Syracuse will have the opportunity to decide how our municipal government should be structured.
As the mayor of Syracuse, I recommend voting against Municipal Referendum 1. The mayor, an elected official, should be the CEO. If the citizens don't agree with him, they can vote him out. A city manger is an employee and cannot be voted out. I believe the citizens expect more of a mayor than being a figurehead or someone who merely bangs a gavel at the city council meeting. They expect the buck to stop on the mayor's desk.
On Oct. 10, 2006, four council members, Daniel Hammond, Lurlen Knight, Phil Orton and Dean Steel, voted in favor of an ordinance that stripped away all of the mayor's administrative authority. They transferred the CEO authority, that has been held by mayors in Syracuse for more than 20 years, to a city manager.
On the night of the vote for this dramatic change, the council chambers were packed with concerned citizens. The vast majority of those in attendance asked the council not to pass the ordinance, but to instead put the question to a vote of the people. One citizen had gathered 400 signatures on a petition asking these councilmen to reconsider their position. The four councilmen voted to pass the ordinance anyway. In fact, Councilman Daniel Hammon stated that if the citizens disagreed with the decision, they could start a referendum and "run with it."
Clearly, he and the others underestimated the citizens' resolve. When the referendum began to circulate, these councilmen distributed a goldenrod flyer to every home urging people not to sign the referendum. In the flyer, the council members attempted to justify their action by saying Syracuse had grown to a size that required a full-time employee to manage the city's day-to-day operations.
The truth is that Syracuse has had a full-time city administrator who has managed the day-to-day operations of the city for more than 20 years. Citizens were left to wonder whether the councilmen didn't realize the city had a full-time city administrator or, worse yet, were the councilmen intentionally trying to mislead the voters? The sponsors of the referendum gathered more than 1,700 signatures -- nearly double the required number -- to force the issue to the ballot in November.
In a further attempt to justify their actions, these four councilmen have raised concerns over two budgetary transfers. They are trying to create the impression that I did something inappropriate or underhanded. Let's clear this up right now.
The city did transfer $1 million from one fund to another on two occasions, which is not uncommon for municipalities. The first transfer took the money from the utility fund to purchase the property just north of the cemetery to provide for our future cemetery needs.
The second transfer was to pay off the new community center, avoiding the need to borrow money and to pay interest.
Here is the interesting part. Although I proposed both transfers, the mayor does not have the authority to move the money. Only the city council can do so. Both transfers were approved by a vote of the city council. So, the council members are criticizing me for two transfers that they voted to approve.
Since the council's primary function is legislative, it authorizes and approves all expenditures. To profess ignorance about the movement of $2 million is a little frightening. Didn't they know what they were approving? Didn't they know they needed a public hearing prior to approving this transfer? Even though the city council failed to follow correct procedure, I can tell you that these transfers were made in good faith and in the best interest of Syracuse.
The council members have also raised questions about Jensen Park, which is by the far the largest project the city has ever undertaken. It was a $7.9 million project that spanned three years. Unlike any other park project, we had an imposed deadline. The state of Utah had put our park in the fishing proclamation for a Labor Day opening and it was the most anticipated park opening in Davis County. The city administrator, who was the project manager and was coordinating all the contractors working on the project, retired several weeks before the project was completed. As you might expect, his departure left a huge gap.
One of the last contractors to complete his work was the landscaper. The city council had previously approved him to perform sprinkler work. As Labor Day approached, the staff members and I asked this contractor to complete the final landscaping on the north side of the pond. He had worked for the city numerous times, and agreed to honor his labor from his last project for the city. We knew his work was exceptional and his pricing was fair.
The council members are now criticizing me for getting the park finished on time. With the loss of the project manager at the last minute, no one realized that the landscaping fee, when combined with the sprinkler work, would exceed the amount needed for a formal bid. The city should have put out a request for formal bids before allowing the landscaper to finish the project.
It was an unintentional mistake for which I have already publicly apologized. Despite the oversight, every penny was appropriately spent on this award-winning park, which the citizens love.
When I learned that we had failed to follow proper procedure, I called a meeting with the city manager, the public works director and the treasurer the very next day. I asked them how we could insure that this didn't happen again. This meeting resulted in a rewrite of our purchasing ordinance.
The four council members say we need to change our form of government to provide better checks and balances for the city. Last fall, the city manager ordinance was in effect for four months before a judge overturned it.
During that time, the city manager was operating as the city's CEO. In those few months, the city manager gave unprecedented mid-year raises to employees, created new positions, eliminated the grant writing position (who knows how much that cost us), purchased equipment and entered into contracts -- all without the knowledge or consent of the city council. Where were the increased checks and balances?
None of these expenditures would have occurred if I would have remained as the city's CEO, as each change would have had to cross my desk for a signature. The city is obligated long-term for the decisions that the four-month city manager/CEO made.
I have served as the mayor of Syracuse for nearly six years. During that time, Syracuse has been fiscally sound, acquired excellent ratings in annual studies and received a AA bond rating to build our new civic center. I am constantly asked how Syracuse does so much with so little (trail system, Jensen Park, community center and infrastructure improvements).
The answer is simple, we have great employees and have made good management decisions. I am proud of what we have accomplished in Syracuse and proud of the vision and leadership I have provided as CEO.
Our citizens are informed and knowledgeable. I'm betting they will be voting against Municipal Referendum 1 on November 6.
Panucci is mayor of Syracuse.
Add Your Comment
