City government needs separation of powers

The Columbia City Council and the city manager need to get a divorce—or at least a lasting separation.

Separation of powers is a defining principle of American democracy. Our city’s executive branch—the city manager and his staff—should be better separated from the legislative branch: the mayor and the city council.

Viewing council meetings in this context, the city manager (president) sits at the center of the city council (congress) with the mayor (speaker of the house) to his right. City administrators such as Tim Teddy, Randy Boehm, Mike Hood, Sheela Amin and Fred Boeckmann (the cabinet) surround the council during legislative debate.

Putting the executive and legislative branches together may seem like cooperative politics, but a presiding executive with potent personal and legal authority can drive discussion and overwhelm dissent, especially among part-time volunteer legislators. So singularly influential was former city manager Ray Beck that Inside Columbia magazine named him—not long-term mayor Darwin Hindman—Columbia’s most powerful person.

The city manager and his staff should attend council meetings but periodically, in a mostly informational capacity. Their advice should come during pre-council meetings, not during legislative debate and council voting.

On the flip side, while Columbia’s executive branch is often too involved in legislative affairs, executive branch business frequently consumes council legislators.

With agendas crammed full of routine decisions that any smart chief executive and his or her staff can ably settle, their twice-monthly meetings barely afford city council members adquate time to address visioning, planning and the macro-economic course of our fair city.
Faced with “authorizing construction of a water main serving Quail Creek West, Plat 5” or “accepting a donation for the purchase of digital cameras and equipment for the Police Department,” council members can get tied up in all-nighter knots.

“Something needs to be done to eliminate marathon City Council sessions,” wrote Columbia Business Times columnist Al Germond in October. “To expect our sleep-deprived council representatives to decide on any matter of importance at, say, 2 a.m. is a risky proposition.”

Risky indeed. Regarding a particularly grueling September 2006 council meeting, Germond called the executive branch staff person who drafted the agenda “downright irresponsible.”

At that meeting, two controversial legislative issues—West Broadway improvements and a Sexton/Garth commercial rezoning—were buried under line after line of executive branch business, from reconstructing roads to approving an irrigation lake.

In the end, the agenda defeated itself—and us. After years of indecision, the marathon meeting left Broadway’s status in limbo and First Ward councilperson Almeta Crayton nearly in tears.

“It seems to me that the whole matter of municipal governance by these willing volunteers deserves serious scrutiny,” Germond wrote.

In the expanded city hall they approved, council members should share an office with paid office hours, staffed by an office manager dedicated to legislative branch business. Recalling the John Clark-Almeta Crayton brouhaha, one can’t help but think that if Ms. Crayton had an office—and even limited pay—her constituents would not be visiting her at home at night.

Meanwhile, the council should work with staff to decide which issues are best delegated to the executive branch. If the city manager or his staff makes a disputed decision, parties involved should have the right to appeal to council, rather than making it the first stop for virtually every decision.

Does every rezoning, re-platting, replacing, replanting and reconstructing really need council approval? Not if city government is functioning efficiently.

Our citizen commissions—community development, cultural affairs, historic preservation and the like—should also achieve better separation. City commissioners perform an “advisory function” to the legislative branch. But they have an executive branch liaison that attends every meeting. Instead, they should answer solely to the city council, with limited involvement from city staff.

City boards, on the other hand—for police retirement, personnel and various protective activities, such as community health and electrician licensure—may function better under the executive branch, as that is where their duties are mostly concentrated.

Delegate, debate and legislate. In doing so more effectively, Columbia’s chief executive and citizen legislators can bring sophisticated governance to a rapidly growing city and help end those “risky” marathon meetings that add minutes by the mile and hours with every annexed acre.