Editorial: Keep focus on the core of problem

Friday, Nov. 28, 2003 | 4:04 a.m.

WEEKEND EDITION Nov. 29 - 30, 2003

It's common for cities to confront the issue of whether their form of government should be "strong mayor" or "council-manager." The impetus for the debate is usually rooted around public dissatisfaction with the vision for the city or the city's economy or perhaps political infighting that has led to gridlock. Frustrated by the lack of accomplishment, people want change and often think a different form of government is the answer. City Council members in Las Vegas, including Mayor Oscar Goodman, are now trying to get the public debate going here. Goodman and others on the council are encouraging the notion that a strong mayor is just what we need.

In our view, any discussion now about such a large-scale change in government would primarily serve as a diversion from fundamental problems that would likely have festered no matter what form of government was in place. A debate over strong-mayor versus council-manager may well be overdue here, but the timing is not right for the debate to start any time soon. The debate now would distract from what is immediately necessary -- the development of management policies basic to any form of government.

The call for a strong-mayor form of government comes at a time when City Hall is reeling from revelations about the actions of two employees of the Neighborhood Services Department, and one former employee of the department. The imbroglio revealed that there was no policy governing city employees who are elected officials, that abuse of vacation and sick time went on for years, that at least one employee was immune from day-to-day supervision and that oversight of city-issued cell phones was lacking. These are not the types of problems that converting to another form of government would correct.

Under a strong-mayor system, the mayor is the chief executive. Among other duties, he hires and fires, prepares the budget, oversees all administrative work and recommends policy to the City Council. Those duties fall to the city manager under our current system, with the mayor and other members of the City Council charged with setting policy. We prefer the council-manager form of government, as there is less chance for political patronage and a greater chance of day-to-day government being run by someone whose education and experience matches the office's responsibilities.

There are, however, advantages to both systems and perhaps the day for debating the two will come. But let the debate begin as the result of people yearning for a new direction, and not as the result of officials yearning to divert attention from their managerial shortcomings.

archive