LETTER: City administrator talk doesn’t make sense
To the Editor:
While following this issue, I am amazed by two things. 1. The arrogance of some City Council members and individuals in repackaging this idea of needing a non-elected “manager/administrator” of our city — an arrogance which has been combined with the council maneuvering so that it may hire this person and bypass the will of the people, which was displayed in 2011. 2. That the arguments being presented for the hiring of a manager/administrator are so poorly presented. They can be summarized as: a. Other cities have one. b. We’re not sure exactly how, but it’ll lower taxes. c. An expert from out of town says we need one. d. A businessman and a banker both say property taxes are too high, so it must be how the city is managed.
After my amazement passed, I’ve become resigned that the council will probably hire an administrator who will be an “expert.” My prediction is this expert will come to the following conclusions and pursue them:
a. The administrator position needs a car to get around the city, and a full-time secretary to assist the administrator.
b. Additional procedures and paperwork are required so he may “oversee” the city departments.
c. A study will be conducted to show that the additional procedures and paperwork are increasing the efficiency of government and justifying the need for an administrator position.
d. More office space is needed in a central location so he may “oversee” the city departments.
e. The city should hire more consultants in building and designing this office complex. f. More TIFs and a raise in taxes are needed to lure more business into Mitchell. My final prediction is that, after two to three years of “improving” the administration of the city, the administrator will resign in order to pursue a job at a larger city which is in need of an administrator.