Thursday, July 24, 2008

Executive Level Duties, Responsibilities, and Authority

Here's one thing that became crystal and painfully clear during last Tuesday's Common Council meeting: we have been without executive level leadership for so long in the city of Oshkosh that a majority of sitting councilors no longer even expect the management level to meet its statutory and city municipal code mandated duties and responsibilities. Nor do the majority expect that the executive level will exercise the authority necessary to carry out his duties and responsibilities. [In no way is this a criticism of acting city manager John Fitzpatrick. John went above and beyond the call of duty during his time in the CM chair. He could have coasted but he chose instead to begin the process of restoring some trust in City Hall. Thanks John.].

The issue provoking this discussion of executive level duties is, of course, the manner in which we awarded a Class B combination liquor license. Mr. Esslinger could not participate in the debate or vote as he was one of the applicants. Ms. King could not vote as the applicant that was ultimately given the license (Boat Yard Bar & Grill) is one of her law firm's clients. Thus, we needed 4 out of 5 councilors to agree on an applicant.

I tried to lay over the vote because, even though each applicant had provided us with some information about their project, we had literally no information, recommendation, or any guidance whatsoever from city administration. [Actually that's not entirely true; if the Redevelopment Authority is thought of as an arm of the Department of Community Development, then the RDA's request that we hold on to the license until such time that the RDA might secure some development could be interpreted as an administrative recommendation. I would find it highly unacceptable and even a bit pathetic if that was the best recommendation the administration could come up with].

Granting a liquor license is not something to be taken lightly. Since so much economic development in our state and region revolves around the need for such licenses, and since the licenses are in short supply, the decision of how to allocate them ought to be made in as rational a manner as possible. Of the 6 applicants, which is most likely to revive a redevelopment area in most need at this point? Which project would have the best "economic multiplier" effect? Of the applicants that have applied who have local track records, what is their reputation? Up to date on taxes? Met all other commitments? How do each of these projects meet the city's goals as specified in our comprehensive plan? These and dozens of other questions are of the type that any sitting councilor can try to answer on his or her own (and of course we would need much more time than Friday evening through Tuesday to do that; I personally was not able to analyze all the applications over the weekend, and I taught a 3-hour class on Monday and Tuesday. The only applicant I had the chance to talk to was John Carlson of the McKnight/Carlson group.). I cannot believe that any councilor had the time necessary to do the proper kind of research or analysis necessary to make this decision in as rational a manner as possible. (If they did have such time, it certainly did not reveal itself in the quality of our discussion and debate; no councilor was able to speak in solid, concrete terms about any of the proposals.).

In our system of government, part-time councilors are supposed to be aided by the full-time professionals in city hall, including the city manager level which is authorized to direct city staff to prepare information and/or recommendations. On this issue, for some reason, 5 of 6 councilors did not want the administration to do its job. (Mr. McHugh had some interest in laying over the resolution, but would not second my resolution to do so.).

The idea that a part-time council would not want information and/or a recommendation from the executive level on a matter like this is shocking to me. Let's review exactly what the executive level duties, responsibilities, and authority are in the city of Oshkosh:

Chapter 2, article IV, sec. 2-19 (Duties and Responsibilities of City Manager) includes:
(G) All fiscal transactions of the City.
(I) Keep the Council informed on all matters.

Clearly, licensing is a fiscal transaction, while "keep the Council informed on all matters" must, at a minimum, keep us informed about the economic and/or other consequences of restaurant and tavern proposals before us.

What about the Manager's authority? Chapter 2, article 4, sec. 2-20 says that the City Manager shall have the authority to:
(E) Make recommendations to the Council on all matters of municipal concern.

Is there anyone out there who believes, really and with a straight face, that the awarding of a precious class B license is not a "matter of municipal concern?"

I did not expect John Fitzpatrick, going into his last meeting as acting CM, to take on these executive level responsibilities. My goal was to delay this item for Mr. Rohloff. A recommendation from him would be especially appropriate as he has said that downtown redevelopment is a high priority for him and we hired him explicitly to take on an economic development role. Delaying this proposal would have given us an opportunity to see exactly what he views as high priority development for Oshkosh.

Keep in mind that we regularly receive executive level information and recommendations on a range of issues, ALL of which are "political." Why the class B license issue is any different remains a mystery. I do hope that incoming city manager Mark Rohloff is able and willing to remind the council of the statutory principles governing the Council/Manager relationship. The Manager level is fully within its rights and responsibilities to make recommendations on all matters of municipal concern. The Council cannot silence that level of leadership because of some vague fear of "politics" getting into that office.

The Final Thought: The Council/Manager relationship requires, at a minimum, that the legal requirements of that relationship as stated in state statutes and the city's municipal codes are upheld.

1 comment:

Justin Mitchell said...

Second final thought:

Quantify the value of a license to the city, and provide the state an opportunity to fund the city for each reasonable license request we are unable to fill.

Then, when they don't, issue them anyway.

This is highly visible example of unnecessary big government at the state level telling local communities to do things that the state may not be informed on - at least not to the specific impact this restriction has on each individual community.

Of course, I'm not sure if something like this is even feasible, possible, or smart, but it sounds like an enjoyable challenge of state power.

Also note, I don't think it is a bad idea to have restrictions on the number of type of business a community has in a particular area (sustainable planning, etc). But this would be coming from the actual community where actual people live and work to provide for their family.