Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee Final Recommendation Mareh 12, 2005 Executive Summary of Actions and Recommendations By Resolution 149 dated April 13, 2004, the Battle Creek City Commission appointed a Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee to make recommendations on twelve specific issues. Committee members, with the assistance of City staff, organized, gathered historical data, reviewed like communities, and held public and intemal discussions regarding the issues. Members chose to focus much of their discussion on issue number one: Does there currently exist a need to change the method of selecting the Mayor and Vice-Mayor? Atits December 9, 2004 meeting, by a vote of seven to three (with one member concurring with the majority decision by written communication, and two members absent), Committee members yroved a motion supporting an answer of “no” to issue number (1) one. Members cited historical support for the current system, a desire to be consistent with Commission givens, a lack of empirical evidence supporting change, the subjective nature of arguments in favor of a direct elect system, and the lack of public participation and support for change as reasons for recommending the continuation of the current system. ‘Those supporting a call for change cited the potential for greater voter tumout, more inclusiveness, greater harmony on the Commission, and the appeal of direct election as a more democratic method of selecting the Mayor. By consensus, Committee members agreed that approval of the above mentioned motion eliminated the need to address issues (2) two, (3) three, (7) seven, (8) eight, (9) nine, and (10) ten. At its December 9, 2004 meeting, by a unanimous vote of those present, Committee members approved a motion recommending no changes to the terms of office for the Mayor, Vice-Mayor and City Commissioners (issue number (4) four). Committee members cited a high rate of tumover and the need for a number of Commission appointments (between 1991 and 2003) as reasons for maintaining current terms, At its December 9, 2004 meeting, by a unanimous vote of those present, Committee members approved a motion recommending the continuance of an annual organizational meeting, as specified by the City’s charter, for the purpose of selecting the Mayor and Vice-Mayor (issue number (5) five). Committee members felt that with no changes to the mayoral selection process recommended, the annual organizational meeting allows the Commission an opportunity to evaluate the performance of its leadership and make changes as needed. At its January 13, 2005 meeting, by a unanimous vote of those present, Committee members approved a motion recommending that the position of Mayor not be term-limited (issue number (©) six). Committee members felt that given the Committee’s recommendation to maintain a system of commission clection of the Mayor, it was appropriate for the City Commission to determine who shall lead the group and make adjustments as necessary. Members felt that voting for the candidate of one’s choice was a fundamental right not to be impinged by term- limits. 3/14/2005Final Recommendation 2 Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee At its January 13, 2005 meeting, by a unanimous vote of those present, Committee members approved a motion to respond in the negative to issue number (11) cleven regarding a charter amendment for Commission compensation. Committee members felt that given that state statute (regarding compensation commissions) supersedes the local charter an amendment was not necessary. Members felt that the current compensation committee arrangement provides all the flexibility necessary to ensure adequate compensation for Commissioners. Given that the City Commission had assigned no other issues for consideration and no members had brought any additional issues for discussion; at its March 10, 2005 meeting, by a unanimous vote of those present, Committee members approved a motion to conclude work on issue number (12). ‘A more in-depth explanation and discussion of the Committee’s rationale for its recommendation regarding question number one is attached. It should be noted that the rationale reflects the majority opinion of the membership, not a consensus decision. It should also be noted that the Committee did not engage in a vigorous debate about the “best” way to elect the Mayor. ‘The Committee's work focused on answering the question of whether of not there was a need to change the current system. 2 3/14/2005Final Recommendation 3 Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee Deliberations and Rational February 16, 2005 Acknowledgments The members of the Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee would like to acknowledge and thank City staff for their ongoing support of the Committee’s effort. Particular recognition should go to City Clerk Deb Owens and City Attomey Clyde Robinson for providing a wealth of valuable and relevant information, allowing the group to make an informed, intelligent final recommendation. We would also like to thank Mayor John Godfrey and members of the Commission for their willingness to take a critical, in-depth look at challenging issues and their willingness to engage the public in the discussion. The members of the Committee feel it is important to recognize Chairman Crawford for his efforts coordinating, directing, and facilitating the discussion. His work went well beyond the call of duty. Finally, the Committee would like to thank the many citizens for their contributions including those who have attended and participated in Committee events as well as those who have offered their opinion “on the streets.” Ultimately, the Committee is charged with making a recommendation that best serves, and is consistent with, the will of the City Commission and the constituency they serve. Background By Resolution 149 dated April 13, 2004, the Battle Creek City Commission expressed its intent to appoint a Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee consisting of 13 members: one member selected by each of the nine City Commissioners, a chairperson selected by the Mayor, and three former Mayors selected by the current Mayor. The Commission resolved that the Committee shall be limited to an examination, discussion and recommendation conceming the selection of the Mayor and Vice-Mayor subject to the following parameters: = The current form of City goverment, City Manager/City Commission (more formally referred to as Manager/Council), is to be retained. - The current At-Large/Ward system of City Commissioners is to be retained. ~ Any recommendations must be consistent with applicable law including the Home Rule City Act and Michigan election laws. ~The Committee shall be subject to the Open Meetings Act. - The Committee shall hold its organizational meeting no later than June 11, 2004 and shall meet as needed and shall be permitted, if it finds it expedient to do so, to meet as sub-committees. 3 3/14/2005Final Recommendation 4 Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee ‘The Committee is charged with making a Final Report to the City Commission no later than June 7, 2005, The Commission further resolved that the Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee make recommendations on the following issues: L. 10, ul. 12. Does there currently exist a need to change the method of selecting the Mayor and Vice-Mayor? If so, what methods of selecting the Mayor might be recommended that would be consistent with the current At-Large/Ward Commissioner system? If the method of selecting the Mayor is changed, how should the Vice-Mayor be selected? Should any change be made to the terms of office of the Mayor, Vice-Mayor and City Commissioners? If the method of selecting the Mayor and Vice-Mayor is not changed, should they continue to be selected at an annual organizational meeting or at a biennial meeting following the odd-year general election? Should the position of Mayor be term ? If'so, how? If it is recommended that the Mayor should be popularly elected, should this be on a separate ballot from the At-Large or Ward Commissioner ballots? If it is recommended that the Mayor should be popularly elected, should a candidate be permitted to run for Mayor and an At-Large or Ward Commission position at the same election? If it is recommended that the Mayor should be popularly elected, should the Mayor be permitted to vote on matters coming before the Commission or vote only in case of a tie? If it is recommended that the Mayor should be popularly elected, how should any vacancy in the office be filled? Should the Charter be amended to alter the manner or amount of compensation for the Mayor, Vice-Mayor and City Commissioners? The Committee may consider such other issues as may be assigned to it by the City Commission or that the Committee deems appropriate and relevant to the issues assigned by the City Commission. 4 3/14/2005Final Recommendation 5 Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee By Resolution 177 Added dated May 4, 2004, the Battle Creek City Commission appointed the 13 members of the Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee, (Due to the resignation of one of its members, the Committee consisted of 12 members from September 2004 until a replacement was appointed on January 18, 2005). ‘The Committee held its first meeting on June 2, 2004 and subsequently held ten (10) additional meetings, with the final meeting occurring on April 28, 2005. In general, the meetings where held at 7:00 p.m. on the second Thursday of each month. The meetings were subject to the Open Meetings Act. History City Attomey Clyde Robinson provided the Committee with an excellent historical overview of the City’s Charter and its deliberations around the issue of the election of the Mayor and Vice- Mayor. Additional information provided included a brief history of City Commission elections and appointments from 1991-2003, comments and testimony from the 1983-84 Charter Review Committee, citizen correspondence, turnout and election finance reports from other cities, and a survey of cities examining Mayoral options. Committee members felt the issue had been adequately examined and evaluated over the past several years with no less than seven reviews of the subject since the charter revision in 1960. While the Committee did not attempt to critically analyze or pass judgment on previous efforts, it did draw one conclusion. Despite several opportunities to change the system,' voters, Committee members, and City Commissioners alike have consistently rejected change and maintained the current system of commission selection of the Mayor. ‘The Committee's Charge In its authorizing resolution (Resolution #149, April 13, 2004), the Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee was charged with “considering whether the current method of selecting the Mayor is in the best interest of the City and whether it should be altered.” The Committee was asked to examine, discuss, and make recommendations on the selection of the Mayor and Vice-Mayor subject to the parameters listed above, Applying terminology consistent with past citizen participation efforts in the City of Battle Creek, the “givens” listed above provide a framework, or set of boundaries within which Committee members felt any final recommendation must be contained, Members determined that the Commission intended that any recommendations from the Committee would be “shaped” " 1959-60 Charter Review 1970 voter defeat for Proposals 2 & 3 January 1980 charter revision election ‘November 1980 charter revision election 1981 charter revision election 1983-84 Charter Review Committee 1993 City Commission deliberations 5 3/14/2005Final Recommendation 6 Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee by the givens and would adhere to their principal intent. For many of the givens the intent was inherently clear, The starting date, structure, requirements for adherence to relevant law, and the report deadline were subject to little interpretation. ‘The first two givens, maintaining the current form of government and the At-Large/Ward system also appeared straightforward in intent. Committee members, however, felt that formulating a final recommendation, shaped by and consistent with the givens, required some additional interpretation of the first two parameters. The Commission was explicit in stating its desire to maintain the manager/couneil form of government. While this parameter was not presented with any more emphasis (other than being listed first) than others, conversations with commissioners, staff, and members of the public indicated a strong support for the current system. Thus the Committee concluded that not only should the manager/council form of government be retained but that any recommendation should serve to maintain, and perhaps more importantly, enhance the manager form of government. While uhimately the Committee did not come to consensus on which form of electing a Mayor best achieved this objective, members felt that their recommendation should be “shaped” by a desire to enhance the ability of a professional manager to administer the fimetions of local government. There was also clear support for the current At-Large/Ward mix. It was inferred from this given that the Commission feels this system provides for the best possible representation citywide. ‘The Commission puts faith in the voting public to elect the best possible representative from a slate of At-Large and Ward candidates. Since voters have not previously been asked to distinguish between possible leaders at the polls, it was assumed that voters cast their votes for candidates they deem capable of serving as the Mayor or Vice-Mayor. In maintaining the At- Large/Ward system members did not assume that the voters consider the Ward Commissioner any less capable of serving in a leadership position. The Committee reasoned that any recommendation that excludes a Ward commissioner from running for leadership, other than a system that gives each commissioner the opportunity to make a conscious decision to run directly for leadership, is not consistent with the given. The ical Evidence ‘The Committee was provided a good deal of information regarding governmental practices in a number of like communities across the State of Michigan. Of the total number of cities surveyed (34) the majority had a manager/council form of government (roughly 65%). The rest had a strong Mayor form of government (not relevant to our discussion). Of the 22 cities identified as utilizing a manager/council form of goverment, 16 allowed for direct election of the Mayor with one additional city giving the office to the top vote getter in an all At-large election. Thus 77% of the cities surveyed allow for the direct election of the Mayor ‘The Committee was also provided with statistics from Council elections in Traverse City and Wayne, Michigan both prior to and after each city adopted direct election of the Mayor. The information is provided below. 6 3/14/2005Final Recommendation 7 Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee Traverse City, Michigan City Elections Voter tumout statistics Election Date Ballot Information ‘Turout percentage 11/4/03 ‘Second election with Mayor 32.84 directly elected (no proposals) 11/6/01 First election with Mayor 46.45 directly elected (ballot proposal on sexual orientation) 11/2/99 Council and Bond Issue 29.37 11/4/97 Council and Parks/Rec. Issue 30.20 1/7195 Council Only 21.10 11/2/93, Council and Charter Proposal 31.60 11/5/93 Council and Charter Proposal 16.80 11/2/93 Council and Charter Proposal 37.50 11/3/93 Council and Charter Proposal 26.10 11/5/93 Council and Charter Proposal 31.10 Wayne, Michigan City Elections Voter tumout statistics 2003 Second election with Mayor 18.02 directly elected (no proposals) 2001 First election with Mayor 24.36 directly elected 1999 Couneil and Two proposals for 22.33 Retirement 1997 Council Only 18.20 1995 Council Only 18.79 1993 Couneil Only 24.58 Although discussion of the statistical information was not the most substantive part of the Committee’s deliberations, a description of the Committee’s analysis of the data and rationale supporting the final recommendation is attached as appendix (X). Public Response The Committee faced the dilemma of how to discem the “will of the people” (often a vast silent majority) given the opinions of only a relative few. While some Committee members indicated they had received feedback in support of direct election sometimes from dozens of persons, others indicate they had received little or no support for a change or had received virtually no feedback at all. This occurred despite the fact that the Committee had been engaged in the evaluation process for over six months 7 3/14/2005Final Recommendation 8 Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee ‘The Committee made several attempts to engage the public in the discussion. One entire session of the Committee was devoted to receiving public input. Committee members publicly and privately encouraged citizen participation in verbal, written, or digital form. Committee meetings aired on Access Vision and Committee members took the cause to the airwaves appearing on WBCK’s local “Hotline” program. Only a handful of citizens attended the public hearing held on September 9, 2004. The Committee received less than ten pieces of correspondence on the issue (fairly evenly split). And not a single caller attempted to contact the Hotline program held on October 6, 2004. The Committee however, did not necessarily draw the conclusion that the public did not have interest in the issue. Members felt that public bodies often find it challenging to engage citizens in public decision-making processes. Public Survey Committee members discussed the possibility of surveying citizens to determine public opinion on the issue of a directly elected Mayor. It was suggested that such a survey would engage a ‘greater number of citizens and give a more accurate and up-to-date snapshot of public opinion on the issue, However Committee members questioned the value of such a survey given the complexity of the issue at hand, The Committee reasoned that the City Commission, in its structuring of the Committee's organizing resolution and duties, clearly recognized the complexity of the Committee's charge and intended a thorough examination and discussion of the election of the Mayor and Vice- Mayor given a specific set of parameters. The Commission required that the current form of government, current At-Large/Ward mix, and applicable law be considered as part of any recommendation. ‘The commission carefully constructed twelve issues of consideration and asked the Committee to examine whether there “currently exist a need to change the method of selecting the Mayor and Vice-Mayor.” This diligent approach would suggest that the City Commission (re-enforced by the mere fact that the Commission established a Committee to handle this task in the first place) intended that the Committee go well beyond a simple survey of citizens regarding whether or not they would like to directly elect the Mayor. ‘The Commission clearly wanted factors such as the impact of any change on the efficiency of the manager/council form of government, to be considered. Members believed the City Commission assumed that by assembling a group of experienced and concerned citizens, it would get an in-depth analysis of the issue and that analysis would reflect consideration of all the possible ramifications of any change, by Committee members who understood the inner-workings of City Hall. Members felt that the Commission reasoned that gamering an in-depth evaluation would be impossible given the limiting constraints of a typical survey. Committee members however were not suggesting that the Commission intended that citizens not be involved. Members assumed the Commission would want the Committee engaged in a dialogue with the public (see Resolution #149, April 13, 2004) and would consider the Committee’s efforts to involve citizens in the process a pre-requisite to any decision. 8 3/14/2005Final Recommendation 9 Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee ‘The Committee also noted that on matters of genuine interest to the public, the public rarely fails to get involved. While the Committee hosted empty public hearings, the City Commission has consistently packed it chambers with issues over the years such as the waste-to-energy incinerator, using tax increment funds to develop upper-end housing, prevailing wage, park development, and student curfews. Committee Deliberations The Committee diligently engaged in a deliberate discussion of the pros and cons of the current method of selection (council/commission) versus direct election. Committee members identified the following as potential benefits of each form of selection (Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee meeting minutes, October 7, 2004): Current Method Direct Election 1. Has worked well in Battle Creek 1. Has worked well in other communities 2. Itis a simple selection system 2. Potential for boost in voter turnout 3. All commissioners are equal with 3. All commissioners remain equal ‘an equal opportunity to serve as Mayor 4, Majority of commission has 4, Removes potential for divisiveness, comfort with leadership makes for a more harmonious commission 5. Does not elevate authority of Mayor 5. Respects voters 6. Compliments manager/council form of 6. Catalyst for leaders/leadership government development 7. Requires no charter change 8. Consistent with At-Large/Ward mix After lengthy discussion little consensus emerged regarding the benefits attached to each form of selection. It was, however, generally acknowledged that many of the identified benefits could easily be applied to either method of election. This phenomenon spoke directly to the subjective nature of the benefits of each method and the opinion that many of the benefits were just that ~ a matter of opinion. At such a high level of subjectivity the Committee felt it was very difficult to make a compelling argument for change that went beyond opinion. The exercise appeared to provide little real rationale for change. Throughout the course of its deliberations, Committee members identified a number of other potential benefits and drawbacks to both direct election and commission selection systems. ‘Members who ultimately supported the current system identified several reasons for their support including: - A direct elect system would likely differentiate the Mayor from fellow commissioners with the elected Mayor shouldering more personal and community expectations. ~The current system enforces the “team” concept and commissioners select their team 9 3/14/2005Final Recommendation 10 Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee leader similar to other teams. ~ The temptation of an elected Mayor to assume/exercise powers beyond those granted by the city’s charter. = The perceptions (expectations) of the public that the Mayor has authority beyond that granted by the city’s charter. - The complexity of changing the current system. ~ Generally, the current system has worked very well. Those who supported a direct elect system saw the following advantages: = The direct elect systems as the most “democratic” of selection processes, allowing citizens to vote directly for their leadership. - Direct election of the Mayor was seen as a way to avoid conflicts among commissioners, particularly those caused by the commission selection process. - The potential for a direct election to increase and create voter tumout/interest. ~ A great level of inclusiveness for all citizens. Additionally, the Committee examined a number of potential models for the direct election of the Mayor. Models were submitted by both community and committee members (see exhibits X, X, X). The Committee examined and debated the merits of each model including an extended discussion of the model titled “Public Election of the Mayor Proposal” (submitted by a committee member). The Committee did not come to any consensus regarding a preference for, or the adequacy of any of the models. The models are included here for the purpose of the City Commission’s evaluation of the Committee's work and recommendation. Some members who dissented from the majority opinion felt it was appropriate to include the models for consideration should the Commission choose to pursue direct election. ‘Some members felt that the wording in question number one, “Does there currently exist a need to change the method of selecting the Mayor...” affected the debate as to whether or not there was a “need” for change rather than whether or not one system would be more advantageous than the other. The language in this question was referred to many times throughout the process and some members felt it (intentionally or unintentionally) steered the debate in favor of the current system. Conclusions The issue of direct election of the Mayor has been debated several times since the 1960 charter revision. Despite several opportunities to change the system, voters, Committee members, and City Commissioners alike have consistently rejected change and maintained the current system of commission selection of the Mayor. ‘The Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee was charged with “considering whether the current method of selecting the Mayor is in the best interest of the City and whether it should be altered.” The Committee was asked to examine, discuss, and make recommendations on the selection of the Mayor and Vice-Mayor subject to certain parameters, The Committee believed that the commission intended that any recommendation from the Committee would be “shaped” 10 3/14/2005Final Recommendation 11 Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee by those parameters and would adhere to their principal intent. Two of the parameters — the retention of the manager/council form of government and the At- Large/Ward mix —play a major role in shaping any recommendations. Any recommendation should at a minimum, maintain the ability of a professional manager to administrate the functions of local government and more desirably, enhance the manager's efforts. Additionally, any recommendation that excludes a Ward commissioner from running for leadership, other than a system that gives each commissioner the opportunity to run directly for leadership, would not be consistent with the Commission’s desire to maintain balance and equality among the nine commission seats. ‘The Committee did not believe that direct election (of leadership) maintained and enhanced the manager/council form of government. Most members felt that a Mayor with a perceived “mandate” from the people was much more likely to clash with the City’s chief administrator then one selected by fellow commissioners. The majority of Committee members believed that commissioners were better positioned to judge the ability of their leaders to interact with City staff and work cooperatively to advance the community agenda. Additionally, most members felt Commissioners were better suited to select a leader with a well-balanced and diverse set of priorities — helping to avoid a scenario such as a single-issue candidate being elected Mayor. The majority of Committee members found little empirical evidence to support the need for a change in the selection of the Mayor and Vice-Mayor. Although the Committee was provided excellent data, no conclusion could be drawn to support the contention that one form of government ranked any higher or was any better than another. Additionally, the statistical analysis provided little information on the rationale supporting direct election of the Mayor, the direct election’s impact on a manager form of government, or whether the direct election is the result of a deliberate consideration of the pros and cons of direct election versus selection by the council. ‘The rather subjective nature of the “benefits” identified by Committee members in support of the City’s current method of selection versus direct election, made it difficult for Committee members to envision a compelling argument for change. For both alternatives the rationale provided in support of a particular method of selection appeared to be a matter of opinion. There was little concrete evidence that one system worked better, was more efficient, stirred more voter interest, or retained more equality among commission members than the other. Finally, Committee members felt that City Commissioners clearly recognized the complexity of the Committee’s charge and intended a comprehensive examination and discussion of the issues given a specific set of parameters. The Commission sought a thorough analysis that would reflect consideration of the ramifications of any change. Committee members felt that ‘commissioners were seeking much more than a simple survey of public opinion. Committee members felt that the Commission wanted the public involved and that the Committee’s efforts would have to be consistent with the Commission’s intent. The Committee members were genuinely disappointed in the lack of public participation during its deliberations. u 3/14/2005Final Recommendation 12 Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee Appendix X Statistical Analysis With regard to the survey of cities (page x) members felt that acceptance of the statistical analysis at face value could be misleading. Statisticians distinguish between whole and sample populations, and although the information provided represented a reasonable sampling of like ‘communities across the state of Michigan, it was a relatively small sample of the entire population (potentially all cities or other incorporated governmental units across the United States)'. Additionally, this type of statistical data provides very limited empirical evidence in support of a need for change in the current system. The above analysis occurs at a nominal level of measurement meaning that a city can be categorized as either directly electing its Mayor or allowing the council/commission to make the selection but cannot, given the information provided, be identified as ranking higher or being better than the other based on its selection method, At a nominal level of measurement certain measures of central tendencies such as the mean (average) or median (middle rank) cannot be calculated nor can one engage in more ‘meaningful statistical analysis of the data, With regard to the voter tumout analysis in Traverse City and Wayne, Michigan - in both instances there appeared to be a spike in voter interest in the first election held after the change followed by a decrease in interest in the second election. In Traverse City, Michigan there was a nearly 57% increase in voter tumout for the November 2001 city elections over the previous elections in 1999, The 2001 elections included the opportunity to directly elect the Mayor but also included a controversial ballot proposal regarding “sexual orientation.” The voter turnout for the 2003 Traverse City elections (with no ballot proposals), was an increase of roughly 10.5% over the 1999 elections (which included a city bond issue). These numbers would appear to indicate an increase (although not sustainable) in voter tumout due at least partially to direct election. Unfortunately, the Wayne numbers do not support this assertion, The 2001 city elections (the first to include direct election) saw a 33% increase in voter tumout over the 1997 council elections (the last city election to included no ballot proposals). However the 2003 elections (with no proposals) registered a decrease in overall turnout from the 1997 elections. Few if any conclusions can be drawn from this data other than voter turnout increased in the first year of direct election and decreased in the subsequent election. Bond issues and ballot proposals further cloud the data making it difficult to attribute increases directly to the popular ' Inhis historical overview, City Attomey Clyde Robinson notes that in his December 10, 1959 comments to the City Commission Dr. Arthur Bromage, professor of political science at the University of Michigan cited figures indicating that 64% of communities elected their council At-large, and as to selection of the Mayor, 47% elected the Mayor directly, 52% were elected by fellow commissioners, and 1% elected the candidate receiving the highest vote ‘Mayor. 12 3/14/2005Final Recommendation 13 Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee election of the Mayor. Additionally, with the Traverse City results (normally distributed from 1985-2003) you can be 95% certain that a tumout of 32.84% (the 2003 figure) can be drawn from a popuiation with a mean of 28.01% (the average tumout from November of 1985 through November of 2001). In other words, a turnout of 32.84% could have been likely prior to direct election. Finally, the Committee determined that the statistical data provided little information as to the rationale supporting direct election of the Mayor, the direct election’s impact on a manager form of government, and whether or not the direct election was the result of a deliberate consideration, of the pros and cons of direct election versus selection by the council. 13 3/14/2005