The Hour reports on the political flunkie musings of a four year mayoral term. To kick start such a change, a charter revision commission needs to be created. That in itself will be an interesting political football since once a charter revision commission is created, just about anything can be tossed into play. Naturally the focus will be to limit what the commission examines. Which is a shame because there’s some serious rethinking that Norwalk needs to undergo in determining what kind of government it gets.
First off, the part time council of 15 ill serves the city. The amount of time and amount of due diligence work that council members are expected to do is astounding. As the 6th largest city, you would think that some sort of elected legislative full time spot might be a better idea. Many towns have recognized this and have created city manager positions to tap into the skill set needed to effectively run a city as opposed to the symbolic process. Its an issue worthy of discussion simply because so much falls between the cracks because of the inattention to long term details. Some will make the argument that the election every 2 years is what the problem is. Anyone who actually looks closely at what typically passes for a common council election campaign might dispute that.
There are revenue generating departments that go beyond the simple tax collection aspects that could use real management staffs. The move to create the parking authority, for example, was a typical poorly thought out reconfiguration of political expedience rather than policy solution. The parking authority meets monthly. The parking lots are major daily operations that require a fair amount of policy direction tied to economic development. While the DPW staff does a stellar job managing the details, the cohesion of an integrated parking policy with the rest of the economic activity in the city gets mostly lost. The water pollution authority is no different, and in addition has the problem of dealing with the archaic taxing districts.
What we are likely instead to get is a discussion of two years versus four years, and which political office gets the increased term. WIthout addressing the fundamental roles, administrative needs and direction that Norwalk needs to move in, the term length will really solve nothing more than than getting rid of the every two year election activities.
A four year term for the mayor and council is probably a good thing. If the debate centers around the election ramifications though, its our loss. How long a term that an elected position has doesn’t mean all that much when the power and responsibility of the office remain so ill defined.
