Recently, an observant resident (whose opinion I greatly value) posed this question in a comment on my Facebook page:
"You apparently advocate a part time mayor. Is that to accommodate you so you can maintain your present employment? If so, that is in your best interests but not in the best interests of the rest of us who need a strong, charismatic mayor to run the city as we want it, not the way unelected bureaucrats want it to be. May we stipulate that you are not charismatic?"
It's a valid question, and I'm grateful that the commenter felt comfortable in asking it. To be clear, I'm not advocating for a change to part-time mayor just so that I can do it. My support isn't related to "what's best for me". In fact, what's best for me, financially, would be to push for continued full-time at $90K/yr plus benefits, and try to make that my career for the next 20 years (I currently make $56K/yr as a web developer at UNI - that's a matter of public record). I do love what I do for UNI (as a technologist and instructor), but I wouldn't hijack the municipal system of government for my own interests. Anyone who knows me can tell you I'm "not in it for me".
Part 1: Don't Quit Your Day Job
Why am I advocating a return of the mayor position to part-time (as it was before 1975)? Two big reasons:
1. A basic principle of the American system of government is for elected officials to have some other primary vocation. I believe that elected office is a civic duty, just like jury duty and voting. I believe everyone should seek to be qualified to participate in government - whether in elected office, or a board or commission, or as an informed voter. Part-time mayorship would discourage "career politicians" by allowing many more people to run for Mayor because they won't need to leave their full-time vocation to do it. Not just me, but anybody! This is what the founders envisioned in American government -- as a case in point, the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776) stated:
"That the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judicative; and, that the members of the two may be restrained from oppression, by feeling and by participating in the burdens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections."
I get it, though -- prior to 2015, it made sense for Mayor Crews to be compensated full-time because he held a legal responsibility as the city's chief administrator. But that's not true anymore, which leads to reason #2...
2. The city government was restructured in 2015 to place the mayor's full-time administrative duties into a City Administrator. The same task force that advised adopting a City Administrator also advised, in the same report, making the mayor position part-time, with compelling reasons. You can view the full report here. We currently maintain both a full-time administrator at $190K/yr + benefits, and a Mayor at $90K/yr + benefits; I must leave it to the residents of Cedar Falls -- through their elected City Council -- to decide if this makes sense. I would prefer to serve in a part-time capacity (for the reasons above) but will faithfully carry out the duties in the manner instructed by the people, if that means full-time.
To the comment "we need a strong, charismatic mayor to run the city as we want it, not the way unelected bureaucrats want it to be", I'd respond that's just as possible with a Mayor who's part-time as it is with a full-time. Being part-time or full-time will not change the ability of the City Council and Mayor to retain the decision-making control of the city, as vested in them by law. Either a Mayor and Council retain that authority, or they don't.
Part 2: I Can't Tell You My Charisma Level and It Would Be Weird if I Did
The second part of the Facebook comment was about my charisma. I won't hazard a guess on what level of charisma I have -- that's for others to judge. I appreciate that a Mayor needs to have certain personality traits to be effective, which are part of the accepted definition of charisma:
- Strong communication skills
- Affability and approachability
- Strong inclination for leadership
- Ability to influence others and instill loyalty
- High emotional intelligence / self-awareness
I become the natural leader of most of the groups I'm in -- whether it's to be the jury duty foreman, or the chair of a city committee, or 'spokesman' for my two grad school cohorts, or in my neighborhood association, or on the national staff of the Coast Guard Auxiliary. I put the needs and well-being of others first, and have a very strong streak for inclusion and fairness. I also work hard to build consensus, and think hard before speaking -- and I'm not afraid to speak out when needed. People are generally comfortable around me, and I have always made friends easily- even people very different from me. In my campaigns for City Council and now Mayor, people have supported me even without knowing my specific positions...I've already gained their trust and respect through my words and actions. Is that charisma? I leave it to the voters to decide on November 5th, and I hope you're one of them.