Should Ruston Jump Ship?

I thought I’d share some early thoughts about the push to change Ruston’s form of government (from strong mayor to council-manager). Please share your thoughts and we’ll get ‘em posted. This is an important debate, so let’s start talking now.

The council is gung-ho to make this change as soon as possible and is set to have the mayor put it on the November ballot. It’s worth considering, but we need to explore all facets of the debate. The council has said they will conduct something similar to a political campaign to “educate voters” about why they want this change. But there are some serious reasons to be concerned, too.

Ruston is a 4th class town. Like 81% of municipalities in Washington, we have a mayor-council form of government. From what I understand, the change to a council-manger would eliminate the mayor position. If the change is approved, all 5 council members would be required to run for their seat again at the next general election. This newly elected council would choose a ceremonial mayor from their ranks and hire a paid manager to run the administration.

Our current system provides a balance of power similar to the federal government with both a legislative and executive branch. In Ruston, I think many residents are tired of the conflict between the two branches. This change is being billed as a way to make that conflict go away. But it does so by taking away an important voice and balance we need in a small town. As hard as the dissension and debate might be, it is a vital part of getting all the information on the table and making the best decision possible based on input from many sources.

Council Member Albertson mentioned that he has been reluctant to sign on to this change because he was concerned this is a reaction to conflict between specific personalities. He has since changed his mind, but I think he has a point. This council has made it clear they don’t like this mayor or any of his decisions. None of these elected officials will be here in 20 years (probably) and we should not make a long-term change based on the current animosity between the Ruston Connection council and Mayor Transue.

Our mayor has all the administrative duties. That means he has the power to hire and fire town employees. He is responsible to carry out the policy directions set by the council. In recent months, it has been clear that this council wants to not only set policy, but to hire and fire employees (even going so far as to negotiate a contract for a different prosecuting attorney than the mayor). There are good reasons to shield town employees from the policy makers. Again, the balance is important.

Council Member Huson promotes this as a way to make the town administration function more professionally. (I’ve used that argument for years, mostly as it relates to the behavior of our elected officials) Huson says the current level of development requires a full-time administrator. But we appear to be headed towards contracting all the building and planning services to Tacoma soon. So that big administrative piece goes away. The council sounds like they might even try to have Tacoma take over the sewer utility. Why make this major change if so much of the administrative work is gone?

This change in government would take at least a year to enact, if not longer. We should have had our act together 10 years ago and been prepared for the big developments now underway. But we didn’t. We have to push to get our regulations in shape in the next few months if we want to keep the Point Ruston development moving. The major administrative work on this development has to be done well before we could bring on a full time administrator.

There is no guarantee we could find a good administrator, either. It’s likely this would be an entry-level position, a good resume builder for someone. It’s hard to hang on to folks and build the continuity the council says they want. Just look at the struggle we have to keep police officers around. We are a small town, and even at full build-out we will still be a small town. I’m not convinced we can find that special person to make it all better and keep them here long enough to make a difference.

There are some helpful discussions of this issue on Municipal Research and Services Center web site: Forms of Government Overview, Comparing Council-Manager and Mayor-Council forms, Resolving and Preventing Mayor-Council Conflict.

I’ve watched this debate surface off and on for 25 years. There needs to be a compelling reason to make such a drastic change. Until that compelling argument can be made, I’m not ready to jump ship from the vessel that has served us well for more than a 100 years.

What do the rest of you think? What are your concerns? What pros and cons do you see? I’d love to hear from folks outside our borders, too…

Karen