Thanks NAACP, for hosting a 2015 election forum, 10/6/15. Where will we be 11/3/15?
One unusual matter of which I took note emerged among other verbiage. Mr. Van Veen and Ms. Ortega raised the idea of a "more responsive city government.” We all agree that this is always a reasonable goal in and of itself. But, eliminating the City Manager form of government? Amend the City Charter to something pre-1985?
In 1980, Las Cruces had some 45,000 residents and size-ranked 457th in the US. In 1985, the City Manager form of government was approved. The City Manager’s ordinance passed (Ordnance 1082, 7/3/89). In 1990 the population was some 65,000. Today we are size-ranked 294th in the US. 2014 Census estimate is some 101,000. There are 297 U.S. cities with populations of 100,000 or more. "Las Cruces has more residents than South Bend, Ind., Kenosha, Wis., Erie, Pa., Roanoke, Va., Hillsboro, Ore., and Flint, Mich.” (Steve Ramirez) How does something possibly akin to the New Hampshire Town Hall model work in a 101,000+ city?
Under the City Manager (excluding City Council) there are 20 Departments, e.g, Administration, Community Development, Fire, Financial Services, Police, all the way to Utilities. To whom would all these departments report and how would they receive direction? Tis a puzzlement. How does this change things? Citizens can call and visit their Councillor, the Mayor, the City Manager and departmental staff now. Councillors hold town halls in their districts where they go to listen. The Mayor and Council are not full-time.
Removing the City Manager - Article III of the City Charter - worsens responsiveness, does not improve it; is dismantling government the intent? The City and Mayor Miyagishima’s work toward a 3-Star National Sustainability award is more pertinent.