I am in favor of taking the day to day responsibilities of running the City away from the Mayor and given to a professional manager who can help make overseeing the management of such a large enterprise easier thus allowing the Mayor to focus on the “big picture” issues and connecting with residents/businesses on some of the systemic challenges facing the City… City Council has to confirm the appointment and removal of the City Administrator which is a good check/balance… So hopefully (in a perfect world) this person would be apolitical and a professional CEO type that could seek efficiencies and policies to improve their City.
(This would require an amendment to every respective city charter)
What are your thoughts on this? I doubt this position is going to created and approved without any public input.
I don’t know what exactly you define as the “day to day responsibilities” of the Mayor, but Mayors generally do not have an unreasonable amount of responsibilities. Therefore, I don’t really see a purpose in doing something like this.
The municipalities are perfectly ran with a Mayor. No need to add different positions for different responsibilities when we’re trying to fix up the cities. There’s a reason why we also have a Deputy Mayor and our own administration.
I believe that the City of Raddleton has a city administrator. Perhaps you could ask this question in their forum (if they have one) and see how people feel there, pro or con, about their own city having one.