Voters wield the power for borough

For the first time in at least 20 years, as far as we can reckon, Mat-Su Borough voters will get to decide in October whether they want the borough’s chief executive to be an elected, rather than appointed, position.

The debate is often between supporters of a strong mayor and supporters of a strong manager. Strong mayors, supporters say, are beholden to the people who elect them and thus are more responsive to those people.

Having a strong mayor is simply more democratic than having an assembly-appointed manager. In any debate it’s best to give due consideration to both sides. Here at the Frontiersman, we have heard quite a bit about the advantages of having a strong mayor in charge, but surprisingly, we haven’t heard much from strong-manager supporters. We can think of a few arguments they might use.

First is the old worry that elected officials tend to gain office for their popularity, not necessarily their competence. Strong managers are usually in place in communities where there is a worry that a lack of experience among potential candidates might lead to a poorly run municipality.

The counter to that argument, one with which we have a lot of sympathy, is that the Valley has matured and that there are a number of interested parties who could do the job and do it well.

An argument we find more troubling has to do with exactly how much power a strong mayor would have. The current system has seven people deciding each issue. Having a mayor with executive power won’t change that.

But mayors have more than just the power to execute the assembly’s wishes. Any regular attendee at borough assembly meetings will have noticed that each issue comes before the body with a presentation from borough staff. That’s how information flows. And the person with his or her hand on the spigot of that information is the borough manager. Is it a stretch to think that if a strong mayor with his hand on that spigot wants an issue to go one way or another he might cut off or alter that flow?

In most strong mayor governments we have observed, it seems the biggest fights between a mayor and assembly come when there is a discrepancy between what the mayor knew and what he told the assembly.

When that chief executive is an assembly appointee, he or she alters information or cuts off its flow at his or her own peril. The same assembly that appointed the manager can just as easily terminate. A strong mayor doesn’t have that sword hanging overhead.

Another thing regular meeting attendees have probably noticed is that the borough manager is a target for the assembly. When something goes wrong, it is the manager who takes the heat — and usually does so without comment and without shooting back. A strong mayor would feel no such compunction to hold his or her tongue, which might be a good thing. Debate, after all, is generally healthy. But it also has the potential to devolve into a shouting match or power struggle.

At any rate, the assembly, in approving a strong mayor ballot question, may have to live with the decision if it’s to take day-to-day management of the borough out of its control.