Ed Austin and Rick Mullaney on Consolidation's Future

[Metro Jacksonville]

Ed Austin and Rick Mullaney on Consolidation's Future



A fascinating discussion between Ed Austin, who has the distinction of being the former Mayor of Jacksonville and long time State's Attorney and General Counsel Rick Mullaney.

Austin is a member of the Charter Review Commission charged with recommending changes to the form of government that defines the city.

Rick Mullaney is the attorney for the entire City and all of its component authorities, boards and bodies.

Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2009-oct-ed-austin-and-rick-mullaney-on-consolidations-future

[stjr]

I believe, if you extend the elections, like you're just talking about, you will create the very anticonsolidation problem that -- I don't know how well I communicated -- which is interfering with our ability to speak with one voice; interfering with the public policy debate; and, quite frankly, interfering with a strong mayor form of government, who, in the end, as the mayor goes at consolidated government, so goes consolidated government.

So my short answer to you is -- is that -- to the extent you create silos of authority and independence and fragmentation, I believe you undermine consolidated government.

Looks like Rick may favor non-elected officials across the spectrum of offices including school board, sheriff, etc.  It will be interesting to see how this is handled by the Charter Revision Commission.

I am wondering why the elected positions were created to start with?  What was the original thinking?  Did they really think the voters cared enough to select these positions?  I mean Tax Collector, Supervisor of Elections, and Clerk of the Courts?  What happened to Dog Catcher?  Very few voters participate in these elections and it appears to be more of a popularity contest than based on qualifications.  Witness that most victors in these positions were elected previously for other offices.  The Civil Service employees do most of the heavy lifting in these departments to boot.  How many voters have any real idea of how the elected officials are doing their jobs, short of a major scandal.

Disadvantages to the elected position would seem to include:  expense of elections and campaigns, politicizing the offices, eliminating the opportunity to hire apolitical professionals that are "best in class" and may be from out-of-area, creating political indebtedness for the office holders to certain constituencies and/or supporters, lack of integration into the executive branch,  more bureaucracy and inefficiencies interrelating with the rest of City government, and dilution of the consolidated government model.

[stjr]

But maybe the mayor would be the incorrect person to entrust appointments to.

Perhaps it would be Council?

The answer, Stephen, may be the Federal cabinet model.  In that model, these elected positions would be treated like a cabinet position.  The mayor appoints them and the City Council vets them in hearings and approves their appointments.  That way the mayor picks his team, but with public scrutiny.  I think that would work well.

This might actually be a good way to handle other "boards" including the authorities and the school board.

Of course, I would want to restructure the City Council as a prerequisite with at-large holders on it having equal or majority control.  That would wring even more favoritism out of the system.

No system is fool proof.  We have had plenty of corrupt "elected" officials.  Heck, the mayor of Birmingham just got indicted and he was elected.