Strong Mayor is weak option

The Mat-Su Borough is a complex organization with many employees. And it is responsible for hundreds of milions of dollars in public money.

Ideally, a person hired to helm an entity that oversees a web of functions as vital as educating our children, maintaining our roads and collecting our taxes would have broad management and professional skills topped off by years of experience doing the job. In some companies, that person also would be responsible to a board of directors and shareholders.

At the school district level, school board members hire and fire the superintendent based on his or her skills, experience and performance.

Why not elect a superintendent of schools?

Because while nearly any borough resident of legal voting age may run for election, it does not mean each is qualified to manage the school district.

The same is true at the borough level. Not everyone electable is qualified.

Regardless of party affiliation or whether the election is local, state or national, elections are popularity contests.

Mat-Su Borough voters will decide Oct. 5 whether they prefer a borough manager who is hired by the assembly from among the qualified applicants for the job. Or, to have the borough’s top spot occupied by an elected mayor who may or may not be qualified.

If elected, that person likely would be picked by a very small percent of the total electorate. Too often, fewer than 30 percent of the borough’s registered voters participate in local elections, and not every person in the Valley is even registered to vote.

The question will look like this on the ballot: “Shall the manager plan of government for the Matanuska-Susitna Borough be repealed?”

If approved by voters, Proposition 1 would allow borough residents to elect the person charged with managing the borough’s employees and responsible for what happens to borough taxpayers’ money. The assembly would no longer be able to review the person’s qualifications and filter out the candidates who lack adequate education and experience for the work ahead.

If borough residents elect a mayor who is corrupt or incompetent, ousting that person would then require a lengthy process culminating in a recall election costing tens of thousands of dollars in taxpayers’ money. Under the current system, assembly members hire and fire the manager.

Switching to a so-called “strong mayor” system opens the door for any group with enough money to buy ads and win the office for their preferred mouthpiece — a person who could then take the reins of our borough, dole out taxpayer-funded jobs for their favored friends and colleagues and be almost impossible to quickly dislodge. We believe Proposition 1 should not be approved because it has the potential to bloat our tax burden, rather than control and channel government, as its proponents claim.