Assembly fails strong mayor ordinance

PALMER — The Mat-Su Borough Assembly voted against presenting a ballot question to Valley voters on a decision to change from a strong manager form of government to a strong mayor.

Assemblyman Jesse Sumner introduced Ordinance 20-046, which was first introduced to the Assembly on May 5 of 2020. While the Mat-Su Borough is a strong manager form of government as a second class borough, Wasilla and Houston are all strong mayoral forms of government in first class cities. Palmer has a strong manager form of government.

“The Mayor would retain his current powers and gain all the powers and duties of the Manager. The only power the mayor would then lose would be the power to preside over assembly meetings. The assembly would have to elect a chair,” said borough Attorney Nick Spiropolous. “What you would do if this ballot question goes forward and is passed by the voters, the borough government would change in that the mayor would become the chief administrator and perform all the powers and functions of the manager.”

Public comment on the issue was mostly split, with the majority of the seven members of the public speaking against the proposed ordinance. At the time Sumner introduced 20-046, the Assembly was conducting a search for a new manager, and eventually hired Mike Brown who officially started in December after working at the Mat-Su Borough School District as Executive Director of Operations.

“My first biggest concern is currently to elect a mayor you don’t need 50 percent. In a borough that is big and divisive as we have now, if you’re going to switch to a strong mayor form of government we should also change the rules so that you’ve got to get at least 50 percent,” said Robert Hall. “There are a lot of advantages eventually we’ll have a strong mayor. There’s accountability, if we don’t like what the guy is doing, we can get rid of him, we can talk to him.”

If passed, the ordinance specified that the manager form of government should be repealed upon adoption through a series of ordinances. The mayor would no longer chair the meetings and would not vote to break ties on the assembly, but would retain powers of veto. Sumner moved two amendments that both passed without opposition, first changing the date of the ordinance to reflect the upcoming 2021 election rather than the previous 2020 election, and second to separate the question from the rest of the ordinance. Sumner admitted himself that he was torn on the issue.

“I actually don’t know which way I would vote if it was on the ballot,” said Sumner. “I’d be inclined to still send it to the ballot and like I said I don’t know whether it would pass or not. I think that fairly regularly you should give these kind of options to people.”

Valley voters recently voted down an opportunity to repeal the manager form of government. As the ordinance was being discussed last year, Mayor Halter joked that he would likely issue a veto if passed by the assembly, which spurred Sumner’s amendment to split the question of implementation and the ballot proposition to voters.

“I support the strong manager form of government that we have currently. I’ve always said that. I believe in that and I’m not changing my mind so it’s interesting to me that you’re supporting a strong mayor, yet you want to weaken this mayor’s right to veto,” said Halter.

Members of the public who supported the measure noted the ability of a strong mayor to devote staff to specific issues and the increase in population as positives of the ordinance. Among other concerns raised by members of the public and the assembly about becoming more similar to Anchorage, Assemblyman Rob Yundt II noted that mayoral races in the Mat-Su Valley rarely see aggressive political fundraising and expensive campaigns.

“You’re going to see politics. Follow the money, it’s a terrible idea,” said Yundt.

Assemblyman Tim Hale asked Spiropolous if the repeal of the manager form of government could be brought to the ballot through a citizen’s initiative, which Spiropolous confirmed.

The vote on the twice amended ordinance failed 4-3. Assemblymen McKee, Sumner and Yundt voted in favor with Assembly members Hale, Nowers, Tew and Deputy Mayor Boeve in opposition.

“It concentrates power which is a bad idea in my book because if you’re on the winning side that’s great, if you’re on the losing side not so great,” said Nowers. “The idea of putting this on the ballot while I appreciate going to the voters, this is a solution in search of a problem. I haven’t had anybody clamoring for this.”