Palmer council shouldn’t change rules midstream

There’s more than one good way to organize local government structure. The important thing is to have a clear chain of command, duties that are well defined and a team that knows its purpose and cooperates to achieve those objectives.

Palmer is a city of nearly 7,000 where people have twice elected John Combs to serve as mayor. The mayor has been a full-time, paid position in Palmer since an ordinance change in the summer of 2005, nearly a year into Comb’s first term. When 537 voters cast their ballot for Combs last month, they reaffirmed his role as their full-time employee.

Enter Councilman Tony Pippel. While Pippel and three other council members approved making the office of mayor a full-time, paid position in 2005, he is now backing a change that cuts the mayor’s annual pay from $45,000 to $20,000 and reduces the office’s duties. Fellow councilman Ken Erbey has been quoted as saying having a full-time mayoral post is a failed experiment, one that has failed to provide its “bang for the buck.”

The city is organized to have its manager as its chief administrative officer. The manager’s duties, according to city ordinance, include the following:

• Supervise administrative officers and departments, except the attorney and clerk;

• Prepare the annual budget;

• Enforce code;

• Be responsible for the employment of all city employees;

The mayor’s duties, according to city ordinance, include the following:

• Preside at council meetings;

• Advise the council;

• Appoint members of boards and commissions;

• Be official spokesperson for the city;

• Represent the city in nonadministrative intergovernmental relations, in conjunction with city manager where appropriate;

• Coordinate and facilitate communication among council, manager and public.

In a nutshell, the mayor is primarily responsible for being the face of Palmer and its representative to the world at large. The manager deals with the nuts and bolts of city business.

Bill Allen, hired as new city manager by the council in August, serves at the pleasure of the council, which includes the mayor with his lone vote (no veto power), and reports to the council. We have no doubt his days are taken up with the logistics of running the city.

Combs, who made 190 outreach appearances as mayor last year and answered nearly 7,000 phone calls, letters, e-mails, etc., in his official capacity, fills up his days with being a liaison.

While Erbey questions whether having a full-time mayor is worth the investment, Combs points to the $13 million his efforts helped bring into the city in project money two years ago and $15.5 million this past year as proof-positive of his effectiveness.

Whether a city the size of Palmer can afford both a full-time manager and a full-time mayor is a valid question. What isn’t valid is an attempt by council members to thwart the will of the people by changing the role of mayor a few weeks after he was elected to serve as a full-time public servant.

The time for the debate was prior to the filing date of this year’s election.

For now, the city should be using its two employees — its manager and its mayor — to keep Palmer moving forward in a direction that reflects the will of its populace. They should be working together, coordinating efforts, to make sure Palmer is getting its fair share of funding and continuing its healthy growth.

Before the mayor’s seat is up for election again, let the debate rage anew. But let it be based on what’s good for Palmer, not because something may be sticking in the craw of a council member or two.