Strong mayor plan likely dead

‘Hybrid’ proposal being considered that would still give mayor more clout

By JEFF WILKINSON

jwilkinson@thestate.com

A commission studying a change in Columbia’s form of government has all but ruled out the strong mayor system because it would dilute representation for predominately black neighborhoods.

“Strong mayor will never pass in the city of Columbia,” said commission member Bobby Gist. “The will is not there, and there are members of council who would campaign against it. We’ve got to deal with the reality of what will sell and what will not sell.”

But proponents of a strong mayor system, primarily members of the business community, have been pushing for changes to strengthen long-term planning, streamline the budget process and establish more accountability.

So, the 16-member commission is exploring a compromise “hybrid” form of government that would:

• Make the mayor a full-time position with a commensurate salary

• Give the mayor more influence in hiring and firing the city manager

• Give the mayor greater weight in the planning and budget process

• And install penalties for council members who stray from the rules set down by state statutes that discourage them from interfering with the city’s day-to-day operations. Term limits and recall provisions were mentioned.

The commission has been meeting for more than a year at the request of Mayor Bob Coble. On Wednesday, members asked the drafting committee and the Municipal Association of South Carolina to nail down some specifics on a possible hybrid system, such as salary recommendations for the mayor and ways to codify misconduct by council members.

Lonnie Randolph, state director of the NAACP and a commission member, said suspicion of the strong mayor form stems from historical under-representation of minority neighborhoods.

“We need to talk about race,” he said. “The subtleties that exist are still race- and class-oriented.”

The bottom line, he said: “I would rather have seven bosses than one dictator.”

Randolph said council members should be held to the letter of the law under the present council-manager system, rather than lessen the influence of district council members.

“We have to look at what we can do to make the system abide by the law,” he said. “If that doesn’t correct the problem, I would look at other ways of addressing it.”

A draft report circulated Wednesday states that council members continue to operate outside state law by “micro-managing” the city manager.

“The system as presently operated is broken,” said attorney Bill Boyd, chairman of the commission’s drafting committee. “And the city is not operated under the statutory mandates.”

As a result, “the mayor and the city manager are absolutely hamstrung by the system,” he said. “They are in an intolerable position.”

Among the problems cited in the report:

• Council members improperly intervene in hiring decisions.

• They ask for favors for constituents, such as moving one project ahead of another.

• They interfere with the city manager in making personnel decisions.

• They pressure the city manager for favors for political allies and friends.

Twelve of the 16 commission members must vote on a recommendation for it to be forwarded to council, making a true strong mayor nod a near impossibility given the disparate opinions offered in several meetings over the past year.

Council can then ignore the recommendation or put it to a vote of the people. A petition drive can also place the issue on the ballot if council defers.

Under the present “council-manager” form of government, a city manager runs the city’s daily business under the direction of the council as a whole.

A move to a strong mayor is seen as diminishing the power of district council members and is opposed primarily by many African-American and neighborhood leaders.

Proponents say council members frequently operate outside of state statutes, acting as “seven bosses,” leveraging undue influence on the city manager and department heads for special treatment of their districts.

The result is poor long-term planning and disorganized budgeting, they say.

Reach Wilkinson at (803) 771-8495.