Former state Sen. Keith King is considering running for City Council District 3.

“I picked up the papers, but I haven’t made a final decision,” King, 64, said Friday.

“I’ll be making a decision shortly.”

King is well known in Colorado Springs, especially in political circles.

King, who moved to Colorado Springs in 1977 and started a waterbed furniture store chain with 18 stores in six states, served on the Cheyenne Mountain School District Board. He served as a state representative for eight years and as a state senator for four.

“I would have run one more time, but the district got gerrymandered, and I didn’t want to run against Bill Cadman so I walked away,” he said.

King has started four charter schools and is currently the administrator of Colorado Springs Early Colleges.

King said he’s interested in running for council primarily to help the council transition to the strong-mayor form of government.

King said the council should focus more on things like developing policy and strategic planning and less on the operations of the city.

“I think the citizens of the city spoke and said they want a strong mayor to run the city much like a CEO or much like the governor of the state of Colorado,” he said.

“I bring a unique opportunity, I think, for Colorado Springs to step forward and really embrace the strong mayor form of government and have a way for council to collaborate and cooperate with the mayor and not be so confrontational that we don’t get good things done,” he said.

“I’m just looking to bring my legislative expertise and how the legislature functions and bring that to the operation of City Council to make it something that would be beneficial for good, effective governance of the city along with the strong-mayor concept,” he said.

If King decides to run, he would face at least two other candidates. Former county Commissioner Jim Bensberg announced his candidacy last year, and City Councilwoman Brandy Williams is expected to make a formal announcement next week.

Colorado Springs Utilities is all the talk these days, and everybody seems to have a iron in the fire, including Mayor Steve Bach.

But under the new form of government, it’s the City Council — not the mayor — that oversees the $1.1 billion city enterprise.

So, what does council President Scott Hente think about Bach’s constant involvement with the four-service utility?

“The mayor has the right as any citizen in this community does to express his opinions about any of the services that our municipality provides. However, he tells me on a very frequent basis that some things are the responsibility of the executive branch of this community. You know what? I respect that, so if some things are the responsibility of the executive branch of this community, then some things are the responsibility of the legislative branch of this community and Utilities is one of them. So, I guess what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”

The Peak Freedom Forum is hosting a wide-ranging community discussion about the city’s new form of government.

The discussion will be from 5-7 p.m. June 27 at the Mining Exchange downtown.

Panelists include political science professor Bob Loevy, City Council President Scott Hente, former City Manager Jim Mullen, former Mayor Mary Lou Makepeace, Gazette editorial page editor Wayne Laugesen and Kevin Walker, who led the campaign in support of the so-called strong mayor form of government.

“This isn’t a debate about the current mayor, but about the new system under which he and City Council are now operating, with one year’s experience under their belts,” organizers said in an email.

“Is it a plus? Or is it a minus? What appears to be working? What doesn’t? What are the new system’s strengths? What are its weaknesses? What steps, if any, might be taken to resolve any problems? And when should we take them?”

The discussion isn’t free.

Admission is $20. To register online, click here.

For questions, contact Molly Homec at info@peakfreedomforum.org or at 235-5476.

An analysis of the city’s new council-mayor form of government — aka “strong mayor” — from the group that put the charter change on the November 2010 ballot has created a long thread of emails among city officials.

The biggest point of contention is whether the new form of government is affecting City Council members’ ability to be responsive to their constituents.

Here are the emails, with a few minor tweaks, in the order I received them:

8:40 a.m. Wednesday

Dear Ms McNally, Senator McElhany, and Mr. Murphy,

Thank you for your analysis of our new form of government.  As one of three council members who have served under both systems, I appreciate your suggestion that we not rush into further changes, or “tweaks”.

I’m also glad that you emphasize the “checks and balances” that were built into this new system.  We have experienced some “growing pains” as we get used to this system.  In addition to a new form of government and a new mayor, we also had six new council members.  So, this has been a learning process for all of us over this last year for council and nine months for council and mayor.

One misconception, and I’ve been guilty of this as well, is the term “strong” mayor.  We did not elect a strong mayor.  We changed our form of government from council-manager to council-mayor, and then elected a mayor.

In some of the issues, where each branch has been trying to determine their roles and responsibilities (and authority), I’ve received admonishment from some citizens that “we elected a strong mayor and you should fully support him in what he is doing”.  While I want to support the Mayor in his desire to make our city the best it can be, we did not change our form of government to “mayor-rubber stamp”.  As a part of the checks and balances put into place, I believe we have the duty to examine each issue and offer, if appropriate, alternatives or suggested changes.

One issue I have with this new form is my inability to be as responsive to my constituents as in the past.  We were elected by the citizens and they still look to us for assistance with everything from fixing potholes to code enforcement violations to public safety concerns.  But we can no longer directly raise these citizen concerns with city staff.  We need to go through a “liaison” who forwards our concerns to city staff.  This can add delay in getting the citizens’ issues resolved and I lose the ability to provide direct feedback to the citizen with a status on their concern.

We have also changed our council makeup from 4 at-large, 4 district, and 1 mayor to 3 at-large and 6 district representatives.  Where we used to elected the 4 at-large and 4 districts in different cycles, we will now elected 6 districts at a time which could result in a large turnover every 4, or at best 8, years.  There is a steep learning curve and this could result in loss of continuity.  In addition, it could make it easier for a faction to organize candidates in the 6 districts and, if successful, gain control of the council.  As we saw in the last election with the 5 “reform team” candidates (which, thank God, were not successful), this is a real possibility.  Perhaps we should look at 9 at-large or 9 districts with the 5 odd-numbered elected in one cycle and the 4 even-numbered in the next.

I am committed to making this new form of government work for the betterment of our city.  We do face many challenges and it will take a cooperative effort between citizens, council, the Mayor, city staff, and business and civic leaders to achieve the goal that we all have of making this the best possible place to live, work, play, and raise our families.

Thank you for your continuing service to our community and for your support.

Sincerely,

Bernie Herpin

Council Member District 4

8:53 a.m. Wednesday

Andy, Mary Ellen, and Chuck,

Ditto Bernie’s comments on our appreciation as to your analysis and commentary on our new form of government.  While I am not in complete agreement with everything you stated, I do believe you raise some valid points.

While I could be accused of being too close to the changes brought upon by this change of government, I would be willing to sit down with the three of you and do a “lessons learned” session based on experiences, frustrations, and successes after having been at this for close to a year.

Your call – let me know if you think this would be a worthwhile use of our collective time.

As always,

Scott (Hente)

5:37 p.m. Wednesday

Councilor Herpin:  I feel the need to respond to your comment about your inability to be as responsive to your constituents as in the past.  You stated you can no longer directly raise these citizen concerns with City staff; but need to go through a “liaison” who forwards your concerns to City staff.  You further added that this is causing a delay in getting the citizens’ issues resolved and as a City Councilor you lose the ability to provide direct feedback to the citizen with a status on their concern.

The ease of which a citizen request or Councilor question gets through our system has not changed with this new form of government; although I will admit there was some misunderstanding (from both the legislative and executive branch) during the transition in government.  I believe as of January 2012 it is nearly the same as it was before the government change.  When the issue you highlight above was surfaced as an issue by some Councilors, it was quickly agreed by the executive branch that Councilors may contact City staff directly for minor items that do not require significant staff time; such as constituent concerns/requests.

However, we did agree that any significant requests by Council (such as a project requiring considerable staff time) would be directed to the City Council Administrator who would then coordinate with City Chief of Staff in every attempt to support the two-week advance communication reciprocity agreed upon at a recent City Council retreat.  I believe the City Council Administrator is developing a process for routing citizen requests received by Council members through the City’s citizen request system which has been available to all City staff and Councilors for some time.  As you know, this online Footprints tool gives all of us the ability to log a citizen request and track the follow-up personally.  As I understand it, there was initially a hiccup in the system of communication with City staff, but that was addressed months ago.

Please take my comments in the spirit they are intended; to educate all copied, but more importantly to provide meaningful support in providing even better service to our citizens in the months and years ahead.

Respectfully,

Laura Neumann

Chief of Staff/Chief Administrative Officer

7:33 p.m. Wednesday

Thank you for the clarification. Hopefully this will facilitate better communication between the Council and their staff liaisons and the citizens they serve.

Mary Ellen McNally

7:55 a.m. Thursday

Laura,

Thanks for the information; however, the reference cited was for questions that council members have on council agenda items, not constituent requests/concerns.  But, I’ll take the clarification in the spirit offered that council members can directly refer constituent concerns to appropriate staff.

I often receive a concern or request about such things as a pothole, code violation, neighborhood traffic, etc.  In the past, I forwarded these citizen requests/concerns directly to the appropriate staff member and they usually responded within a day acknowledging the request and offering some resolution or a time frame for a response.  I could then respond to the citizen, again, usually within a day of getting their request.

Somehow we accomplished this with a couple of emails and no need for on-line databases or tracking systems or liaisons.  As I mentioned at our first mayor’s counsel meeting, I do understand how staff can be overwhelmed with council requests when a citizen sends a concern to all 9 of us and several of us then forward that request on to staff or multiple staff members.

The ability for an elected council member to be responsive to constituents was the concern that I was addressing.  Since being appointed to council in 2006, and elected in 2009, I have always tried to be responsive to constituent requests for assistance.  When contacting staff, and the most often concern involves code violations, I’ve always had great cooperation, understanding, and response.  I know that our city staff has the same goal as I do of providing the best possible service to our citizens.  I just need to be able to ensure that citizen concerns get to staff in a timely manner.

As a citizen representative, I take the “representative” part of my job very seriously and don’t think that responsibility has changed with our new form of government.  Again, I believe staff shares this concern.  We just need to make sure we have a logical, and responsive, way of getting these concerns to them without a lot of bureaucracy getting in the way!

Sincerely,

Bernie Herpin

Council Member District 4

9:11 a.m. Thursday

I would also like to make a comment on response to my constituents.  I have had no issue in helping my citizens  who reach out to me but I prefer to further help them understand the new system and how they can proactively help themselves.  My citizens really like the direct line they now have with the city and only come back to me if an issue is not resolved.  Which by the way, to this date has only been one time.   I am still working with her to see if we need changes at a systems level rather than a micro level (of just fixing her issue). I feel it is my job to speak for my district as a whole and be the person who can help carry out a vision/message that makes our city more customer friendly, business friendly, efficient and effective within our governmental structure.

My residents do feel they voted for a strong Mayor system and really want the Mayor to make decisions and be held accountable.  They would like me to focus on MHS and Utilities.  If I have any frustration it is not at the Mayors office but at the Council level that we need to truly focus on Utilities.

Thank You,

Angela (Dougan)

Former Colorado Springs Councilman Randy Purvis was asked to write a review of Colorado College professor Bob Loevy’s evaluation of the city’s strong mayor form of government.

I don’t know who asked Purvis to write a review.

All I know is that he did it and that I got a copy.

Here it is:

Review of Loevy Analysis
Review of Council – Mayor Form of Government
Randall Purvis, 03.25.2012

Disclaimer: My comments are intended as an objective review of the system currently in place. It is not a justification of the old way of doing things. Furthermore, I intend no disrespect or insult of any one currently in office.

I. Professor Loevy’s baseline assumption is wrong; the citizens of Colorado Springs adopted a “Council – Mayor” form of government, not a “Strong Mayor” form of government. The Charter amendment language was a “find / replace” operation substituting the word “Mayor” for “City Manager.” The advertising campaign featured elementary children talking about checks and balances: “It’s the American way.” The ballot language itself told voters they were voting on a “Council-Mayor” form of government.
II. Nonetheless, the mayor position is markedly stronger one than council’s.

The mayor only has to agree with him/her self. Council must form a team of 6 or more members and act as a cohesive unit to get things done. This, in practice, is very difficult to do. The mayor has total control over city staff (civil service currently only affects only police and fire rank and file). The mayor can establish a direction and the information disseminated can be tailored to support that direction. Anyone who does not sign-on to the direction is fired. Any city employee speaking / leaking information to anyone outside the city administration, to Council or the general public is fired. Any information that does not support the direction or might be critical of it can be suppressed under the “work product” exception to CORA. While City Council has means of obtaining any information from the administration, to date they have not availed themselves of those methods. Furthermore, City Council has no authority to direct administrative staff to do anything. They cannot investigate or review alternatives, propose budgets, etc. because City Council has no staff support outside of the City Auditor’s office. It is the mayor’s ability to control information that demands a system of checks and balances; it demands a city council doing its job, not just rubber stamping everything that comes out of the administration.

III. A system of checks and balances is indeed the American way. There is a healthy and well founded distrust in government, in the persons running government and in any one person having unchecked authority. Accordingly, at the federal and state level, there institutions in place that limit the competing branches of government. At the local level, there is a corresponding need for those same limiting institutions. In establishing the folkways and customs of a mayor – council form of government in Colorado Springs, care must be taken to give the executive branch the latitude it needs to function efficiently, while still giving the 2 legislative branch the resources and authority to provide the citizen’s oversight of the executive branch. Each branch must be accountable to the other, and ultimately to the citizens that elected them. For Council to do its job, it must have the information, resources and advice to be able to do the job. Without the necessary information, council might as well stay in Plato’s Cave. Or to use a more recent analogy, take the blue pill and stay plugged into the matrix.

IV. Given this briefly statement of principles, here is my review of Loevy’s Proposed Changes

A. Council approval of Mayor Appointees.

1. The proposal would remove one of council’s most basic checks of the mayor. Council approval is a basic guard against “crony appointments.” High profile positions such as city attorney and municipal judges should require a set of hearings before council prior to council’s advice and consent to the appointment. The position of City Clerk is especially sensitive. The Clerk’s office controls and runs city elections. Giving the mayor unchecked authority to appoint the city clerk begs for charges, unfounded or not, that the mayor’s office is rigging council district boundaries and elections. An alternative solution might be a two track process: appointments for lower level positions or for positions where a super majority of
council is familiar with or comfortable with the appointee is placed on the consent calendar. More sensitive appointments or those lacking broad council support would get a more thorough council review process.

2. Mayoral Control of the Hospital / Utilities. The Charter change was for a Council – Mayor form of government. The mayor was elected as the chief executive officer of the city government, not of the hospital or of the utility department. As a practical matter, the hospital will likely be leased in the next year. Council is also reviewing alternative governance
models for utilities for future action. As a baseline principal, I feel strongly that the Colorado Springs Utilities board, like many other publicly owned and all investor owned utilities must be directly accountable to the citizen-owners of the utility. This is impossible with an appointed board.

B. City Council Districting

The need for city-wide views on Council is not diminished in a mayor-council government. It is enhanced by it. Council members elected to small districts can become parochial and narrowly focused on their own back yard. As such, they function poorly as a check and balance for the mayor’s office. Furthermore, as the Colorado Springs system is currently evolving, district representatives will also have little authority or ability to effect any change in their district, all of that control having devolved to the mayor’s office.

C. Run-off Elections for Slotted At-Large Seats.

While this may have the effect of the at-large member having a clear claim to majority support, it will also have the effect of decreasing the number of candidates and reducing the competition for those seats. Under the current system, one need only finish third to get a seat on council. Under the proposed change, a challenger must take out an incumbent with all the advantages of being in office. Historically, in Colorado Springs district races an incumbent running for re-election does so unopposed.

V. Summary

The current Council-Mayor system can be made to work and to work well. However, Council is at a huge disadvantage, part structural, part because council has not yet learned to function as a team. Rather than embark on charter changes that strengthen one party’s hand at the expense of the other’s, the current system should be allowed to continue to work out the folkways and customs for a few more years. Furthermore, ambiguities can always be addressed via ordinances.

As a longtime political science professor at Colorado College, Bob Loevy knows local politics inside and out.

Loevy had been making the rounds talking about the new “strong mayor” system of government that Colorado Springs voters approved in November 2010.

At the request of City Attorney Chris Melcher, Loevy put his speaking notes in written form.

Here’s the end result:

      EVALUATION

OF THE

STRONG MAYOR

FORM OF GOVERNMENT

IN

COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO

By Robert D. Loevy

Professor of Political Science (retired)

Colorado College

          On November 2, 2010, voters in Colorado Springs, Colorado, replaced the Council-Manager form of city government with the Strong Mayor form. There was little discussion during the election campaign to approve Strong Mayor of the sharp differences between the Council-Manager form and the Strong Mayor form. Voters were convinced largely by a series of television commercials stating “It’s Obvious” that Strong Mayor was the best choice.

STRONG MAYOR MINUS

Strong Mayor city governments are all generally the same but differ greatly in specific details. Those details can make a great difference. Because there are major limitations on the powers of the new Strong Mayor in Colorado Springs, that city can best be described as having Strong Mayor Minus.

The new Strong Mayor in Colorado Springs possesses the basic characteristics of that form of government. The Strong Mayor is the top executive official of the city, appoints almost all the major city officers and department heads, originates the city budget, and can veto both laws passed by the City Council and budget items added by the City Council. The Strong Mayor also may appoint a Chief of Staff to be the top administrative official of the city. The Chief of Staff serves exclusively at the Strong Mayor’s pleasure and command.

But there are severe limits on the Strong Mayor in Colorado Springs:

City Council Approval of Major Appointments. All major city officers and department heads must be approved by majority vote of the City Council. This removes from the Strong Mayor the power to have total appointment authority over the executive branch of city government. Because the mayor is the most visible, and therefor responsible, elected official in the city, it makes sense for the Strong Mayor to directly select the top officials who will run city government.

The list of mayoral appointees who require City Council confirmation in Colorado Springs is a long one:

City Clerk

City Attorney

Municipal Judges

Chief Financial Officer

Department Heads

Heads of New Departments (created by City Council)

The only city official over whom the new Strong Mayor exerts complete control of appointment is the Chief of Staff.

Strong Mayor Does Not Control City Utilities or City Hospital. Colorado Springs City Council serves as the Utilities Board and also names the director of Memorial Hospital, the city-owned hospital in Colorado Springs. It is completely illogical to not have the Strong Mayor, the city’s top executive official, controlling these two large and important operations of city government. As the most visible and responsible of the city’s elected officials, the Strong Mayor is the logical choice to govern both Colorado Springs Utilities and Memorial Hospital.

Changes to Consider:

Amend the City Charter to permit the Strong Mayor to appoint major city officials without the approval of City Council.

Amend the City Charter to put Colorado Springs Utilities and Memorial Hospital under the direct control of the Strong Mayor.

CITY COUNCIL

          The Colorado Springs City Council possesses the major powers appropriate to a city council operating under the Strong Mayor form of government. First and foremost, the City Council passes all legislation and sends it to the Strong Mayor for signature. Mayoral vetoes of legislation can be overridden by a 2/3 vote of City Council.

The legislative powers wielded by city councils should not be underestimated, particularly when combined with the override of the mayoral veto. City councils under the Strong Mayor form of government mainly pursue their purposes through the legislative process, often imposing their will on the Strong Mayor through the veto override. Once such a law is enacted over the Strong Mayor’s objections, the Strong Mayor is required by the City Charter to enforce it.

The Colorado Springs City Council can pass resolutions and state general policy positions for the city. Although neither of these two powers involve any enforcement powers, they can be used by the City Council to build public support for various programs and policies that the Council majority wishes to implement.

City Council also has the power to amend the Strong Mayor’s city budget as it sees fit. This also is an important power. Budget items vetoed by the Strong Mayor can be overridden by a 2/3 vote of City Council.

The auditing process, the final checking of the city budget after expenditures have been made, is under the control of the City Council. The Council appoints the City Auditor with no participation by the Strong Mayor.

As noted earlier, the Colorado Springs City Council currently possesses the power to approve by majority vote the Strong Mayor’s appointments of top city officials.

CITY COUNCIL DISTRICTING

Colorado Springs currently has three City Council members elected At Large, or citywide, and six elected from Single-Member Districts.

At Large City Council members made sense under the Council-Manager form of government, because there was a need for elected officials who would take a citywide view of problems. With the adoption of Strong Mayor, however, the Strong Mayor is elected citywide and becomes the major official charged with serving citywide interests. In such a situation, it is a good idea to have all nine City Council members elected from Single-Member Districts.

Because the three of them are elected citywide, there is no direct connection between At Large City Council members and the electorate. Few voters seem to know who their At Large City Council members are, mainly because there are so many of them. Furthermore, At Large City Council members all run against each other in a big pool of candidates with the top three being elected to office. The votes are split many different ways, and those elected to At Large City Council seats tend to represent particular interest groups that supported them rather than the citywide electorate.

Single-Member Districts offer clearer lines of responsibility than At Large seats. There is only one Council member elected from each Single-Member-District, and that one person is very visible to the district constituency and directly responsible to that constituency for what happens down at City Hall in the City Council Chamber.

Eliminating the three At Large City Council seats and going from six to nine Single-Member Districts would create clear and direct lines of responsibility between city voters and City Council. Every voter would have just one City Council member who would be highly visible and highly responsible to the electorate. Another benefit would be that each of the nine Single-Member Districts would have a slightly smaller population, thus giving improved direct representation.

Minorities do better at winning Single-Member Districts rather than At Large City Council seats. In fact, Colorado Springs created Single-Member Districts in the early 1970s in an effort to increase minority representation on City Council.

Change to Consider:

          Amend the City Charter to eliminate the three At Large City Council seats and have nine Single-Member Districts.

CITY COUNCIL ELECTIONS

One of the most important and beneficial improvements that came with the adoption of Strong Mayor in Colorado Springs was the requirement for a Run-Off Election for the Strong Mayor. Under this reform, two elections are held. In the first election, all the candidates for mayor run in a free-for-all. In the second election, the top two finishers in the first election run against each other to determine the final winner.

If, in the first election, one candidate receives a majority of the votes cast, that candidate is declared elected and no second election is held. That situation is most likely to come about when a popular incumbent is running for reelection.

The major benefit of this electoral system is that it produces a winner who, in the end, has received the support of a majority of the voters. This results in a Strong Mayor who has shown the ability to win a broad base of support throughout the entire city electorate.

Under the old Plurality System used to elect the Mayor under the Council-Manager form of government, only one election was held. Multiple numbers of candidates ran against each other, and the winner often enjoyed the support of only a small percentage, called a plurality, of the voters.

The Strong Mayor movement in Colorado Springs fell short in that the Run-Off Election reform was applied only to the new Strong Mayor and not to City Council elections, either for At Large seats or Single-Member Districts. The result is clear lines of visibility and responsibility between the Strong Mayor and constituents but blurred lines of visibility and responsibility for City Council members.

Change to Consider:

          Amend the City Charter to provide for Run-Off elections for Single-Member District City Council members.

SLOT AT LARGE CITY COUNCIL SEATS

          If the three At Large City Council seats in Colorado Springs are retained, the seats should be “slotted” into At Large Seat #1, At Large Seat #2, and At Large Seat #3. That way, candidates would run for a particular seat and not get into the At Large free-for-all system that is presently used. Most importantly, incumbents could be directly challenged by opponents running for their seat, something that does not happen under the free-for-all system.

If the At Large seats are slotted, they should have the same Run-Off election system proposed for Single-Member Districts.

Change to Consider:

          If At Large City Council districts are retained, amend the City Charter to provide for slotting of At Large City Council seats. Then require Run-Off elections for At Large seats.

STRONG MAYOR – WEAK CITY COUNCIL

          The Colorado Springs City Council lost a great deal of position and power when the voters adopted the Strong Mayor form of city government in November of 2010. The mayor’s powers were greatly strengthened, and the provision for a Run-Off election made the new Strong Mayor a political figure with clear majority support in the community.

But the City Council was not similarly reformed. The preservation of three At Large City Council seats along with plurality rather than Run-Off elections makes the City Council a weak competitor with the Strong Mayor where visibility and importance to the voters is concerned.

CUSTOMARY ROLES OF THE STRONG MAYOR

Up to this point, only the City Charter powers of the Strong Mayor have been considered. In reality, the Strong Mayor has roles to play in city government that go far beyond the narrow powers specified in the City Charter.

1.     Symbol of the City. Because the Strong Mayor is elected citywide, he or she symbolizes more than any other person in city government the hopes, dreams, and aspirations of the city. The Strong Mayor is expected to be present at, or at least comment upon, major events occurring in the city. The Strong Mayor welcomes important visitors to the city, honors great achievements by citizens of the city, and lends the mayoral name and face to important movements in the city such as charity campaigns. Any event in the city takes on added luster if the Strong Mayor is present, no matter how briefly.

Successful Strong Mayors become closely identified, even synonymous, with the cities they lead. The classic examples were Fiorello LaGuardia and John Lindsay in New York.

2.     Honest Broker of Competing Interests. This role is the main reason Strong Mayor has become so popular in the late 20^th and early 21^st Centuries. As United States cities become more diverse, the Strong Mayor is in the best position to mediate between various interest groups and come up with solutions and programs that serve the majority of interests, vested and not, in the city. In short, the Strong Mayor is to provide the negotiating skills that will get competing interests to work together to achieve city goals.

There are many competing interests in Colorado Springs, but there are two that have stood out over the years. One is a large group of voters, centered in downtown Colorado Springs and its close-in neighborhoods, that favors a more activist city government. This group wants the city government to take positive steps to stimulate the city’s economy and expand services to the public.

A second major group, however, is further removed from the downtown area and located mainly in northern and eastern Colorado Springs. This group is somewhat skeptical of government activity, tends to resist increases in city taxes, and wants to see more attention paid to its part of town.

The Strong Mayor’s job in Colorado Springs is to mediate between these two major groups and generate positive city programs as acceptable as possible to both camps.

3.     Originator of Major City Projects. Strong Mayors are generally associated with the creation and implementation of major city projects. These would include new airports, grand boulevards, major bridges, convention centers, downtown and suburban redevelopment programs, park and open space projects, etc. Prime examples in Colorado would be Mayor Robert Speer of Denver building beautiful Speer Boulevard along both banks of Cherry Creek, and Denver Mayor Federico Pena leading the way in the construction of Denver International Airport (DIA).

4.     Pro- and Con- Leader on Initiatives and Referendums. This role of the Strong Mayor is peculiar to Colorado, a state in which it is relatively easy for initiated city laws and initiated City Charter amendments to be petitioned on to the ballot.

In some cases, the Strong Mayor will want to take the leadership role in bringing about positive change in the city by initiating new laws and City Charter amendments on to the ballot and strongly supporting their adoption by the electorate. Perhaps more importantly, however, the Strong Mayor will be ready to oppose those initiated city laws and City Charter amendments that, in the Strong Mayor’s opinion, will have negative and destructive effects on the city.

Colorado has evolved into a state where many major decisions about government are made by the general electorate voting on initiated city laws and City Charter amendments. Being an “initiative leader,” both pro- and con-, will be a big part of the Strong Mayor’s job in Colorado Springs.

5.     Chief Legislator. City Council clearly possesses the legislative power in the Strong Mayor form of city government. The Strong Mayor, however, is expected to propose legislation to City Council rather than only respond to legislation when it hits the mayoral desk for signature.

There is a good reason for this. As head of the executive branch of city government, the Strong Mayor is the best informed individual on what problems are developing as the city goes about enforcing existing laws. The Strong Mayor thus becomes the conduit by which city officials transmit to City Council their desires and needs in the way of legislative change.

Another reason the Strong Mayor should have a legislative program is because of the Mayor’s greater powers to mobilize public opinion behind needed legislative changes. City Council members seeking to gain popular support for legislative proposals will often seek the Strong Mayor’s public support because of the Strong Mayor’s greater publicity powers.

6.     Chief of Financial Stability. The Strong Mayor originates the city budget and sends it to City Council, but the Strong Mayor’s financial responsibilities are much broader than only the preparation of the city budget. The Strong Mayor is expected to secure the economic future of the city by seeing that high-value properties paying high property taxes are continuously added to the city’s property tax base. In the same way, commercial establishments that collect sales taxes for the city should be regularly added to the city’s sales tax base. Maintenance of strong tax sources in order to support a high-level of city services is a responsibility in Colorado Springs that has been shifted from the old City Manager to the new Strong Mayor.

7.     Occupier of the Bully Pulpit. The Strong Mayor occupies the position in the city that former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt described as the “Bully Pulpit.” More than any other elected official in the city, the Strong Mayor has the power to command the public spotlight and speak to constituents about what should be happening in the city. The Strong Mayor can propose bold new programs for the city, or strongly oppose ideas that, in the Strong Mayor’s opinion, will harm the city and its citizens. If change and progress are to come to the city, it is mainly the Strong Mayor’s job to initiate them.

CUSTOMARY ROLES OF CITY COUNCIL

1.     Open Forum. One of the great strengths and charms of the Colorado Springs City Council has been its openness. In the spirit of the New England town meeting, all persons are encouraged to speak to major issues when they come before the City Council. Two of the most familiar phrases heard at meetings are: “Is there anyone else who wants to speak for this measure?” “Is there anyone else who wants to speak against this measure?”

City Council meetings thus become the principal forum in which the words, policies, and actions of the Strong Mayor can be examined, questioned, and criticized. Because City Council controls its own agenda, this City Council critique of the Strong Mayor does not have to be limited to legislative matters but can be directed to the full range of the Strong Mayor’s activities.

In short, City Council meetings are the City Council’s best weapon in checking the awesome governing and publicity powers of the Strong Mayor.

It is interesting that, at the May 2011 municipal election, the voters of Colorado Springs authorized the Strong Mayor to attend and speak at City Council meetings. This was a sentimental holdover from the Council-Manager form of government that, in my opinion, is completely out of place in the Strong Mayor form of government with its emphasis on separation of powers.

The voters have spoken, however, so having the Strong Mayor attend City Council meetings should be given an honest try. If things do not work well as time goes by, the Strong Mayor should only speak to City Council on special occasions such as a “State of the City” speech.

2.     Errand Runner. City Council members in Colorado Springs, particularly Single-Member District City Council members, are in the habit of taking complaints and requests from their constituents, even when those complaints and requests have nothing to do with legislation. Most of these complaints and requests, such as filling potholes and fixing burned-out streetlights, fall under the jurisdiction of the Strong Mayor rather than City Council.

City Council members will be reluctant to sacrifice this errand running function to a complaint bureau under the jurisdiction of the Strong Mayor. Errand running is one of the best ways for City Council members to maintain contact with constituents and gain their good will in preparation for the next municipal election.

Change to Consider:

Create an office under the Strong Mayor to take complaints and requests from both citizens and City Council members speaking on behalf of citizens. The complaints should be remedied as quickly as possible. The requests should be evaluated and, if found meritorious, put into effect.

3.     An Ear to All. Since the early 1970s, Colorado Springs City Council has set aside time for anyone to speak to City Council on any issue of interest to them. This additional openness on the part of City Council should be preserved.

In a number of cities, the Strong Mayor also sets aside some time each week for any citizen to meet and speak with the Strong Mayor on any subject of interest to the citizen. This occurs in populous cities as well as less-populous ones. Former Colorado Governor Roy Romer conducted such meetings with citizens under his Dome on the Range program.

Change to Consider:

Have the Strong Mayor set aside time for meetings with individual citizens and groups on any topic of interest to the citizens or groups.

SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO CONSIDER:

1.     Amend the City Charter to permit the Strong Mayor to appoint major city officials without the approval of City Council.

2.     Amend the City Charter to put Colorado Springs Utilities and Memorial Hospital under the direct control of the Strong Mayor.

3.     Amend the City Charter to eliminate the three At Large City Council seats and have nine Single-Member Districts.

4.     Amend the City Charter to provide for Run-Off elections for Single-Member District City Council members.

5.     If At Large City Council districts are retained, amend the City Charter to provide for slotting of At Large City Council seats. Then require Run-Off elections for At Large seats.

6.     Create an office under the Strong Mayor to take complaints and requests from both citizens and City Council members speaking on behalf of citizens.

7.     Have the Strong Mayor set aside time for meetings with individual citizens and groups on any topic of interest to the citizens or groups.

A group that pushed a ballot proposal to switch Colorado Springs to a strong-mayor form of government says it’s too soon to tweak the charter amendment.

“It’s possible that at some point, additional charter changes may be necessary to clarify some big-picture aspects of the roles of council or mayor,” representatives of the Mayor Project said in an op-ed letter.

“We firmly believe that it is too soon to ask the voters to consider any charter amendments. We cannot accurately assess the system until more time has passed. Right now, we haven’t even lived with the system for a single year,” they wrote.

Here is the full text of the letter:

It’s been 9 months since our first “strong” mayor took office, long enough for the three of us to hear a lot of community feedback. As proponents of the ballot measure that changed the charter, we sat down together to discuss how the new form of government is working, and if additional charter changes are necessary. We want to share our reflections with you.

Changing to a new system of government has not been without growing pains. But that’s to be expected – after all, as voters, we made a historic, large-scale change that affects more than 400,000 citizens. It’s one thing to change the city charter with an eye toward long-term goals, and another to figure out how that vision actually works on a daily basis. That’s exactly what our new mayor, new council and city staff – as well as all of us, as citizens – are determining. We’re learning as we go, and we’re trying things.

There are gray areas in the charter, and that was by design: just as our Constitution doesn’t dictate who plows the streets, it isn’t appropriate for the city charter to prescribe every detail of government operations. That is up to our elected officials to determine, and the charter must be flexible to respond to changing budgets, technology, community priorities and other factors.

It’s possible that at some point, additional charter changes may be necessary to clarify some big-picture aspects of the roles of council or mayor. We firmly believe that it is too soon to ask the voters to consider any charter amendments. We cannot accurately assess the system until more time has passed. Right now, we haven’t even lived with the system for a single year.

Questioning government is an American tradition. After more than 200 years, we’re still arguing about the roles of the executive and legislative branches of our federal government, so it’s no surprise that similar discussions have arisen at the local level. These are healthy discussions that need to be open, respectful and rational, and take into account the spirit of the changes voters made, as well as the letter.

A key component of the council-mayor government is the checks and balances built into the system. Voters were comfortable giving the mayor new authority because they knew it would not be unfettered. We’ve seen that in action, through both the legal changes of the charter and the political processes it put into play.

It’s important to remember that while we have changed the form of our government, it is still made up of people. That means we all bring our unique personalities and perspectives to the debate. There’s been conflict. If it feels like we’re seeing more conflict than usual, maybe it’s because it’s all happening in the open, achieving our goal of increased transparency. Being the first to navigate a new system of government isn’t easy, and we commend all our elected officials for taking on the challenge. But we must distinguish between matters of charter structure versus personalities as changes to the charter are once again contemplated.

The voters have authorized a system that empowers leaders to do great things in our city. It is up to them to answer the call.

Andy McElhany

Mary Ellen McNally

Chuck Murphy

Spokespersons, The Mayor Project

Mayor Steve Bach will speak at a luncheon Wednesday in front of the Building Owners and Manager’s Association, Institute of Real Estate Management and International Facility Management Association.

The luncheon, which starts at 11:30 a.m., will be at the Antlers Hilton Hotel, 4 S. Cascade Ave.

“Mayor Bach will discuss building a business-friendly environment, jobs, benefits of the Strong Mayor form of governance and an update on his goals,” the city said in a press release.

A luncheon flier states that the mayor will talk about what he has “done to drive new business to Colorado Springs” and whether he has “accomplished the goals he set forth from the platform he ran on.”

“The City’s Economic Vitality Specialist, Donna Nelson, will also speak on the Mayor’s programs that support local business growth, community partnerships and special events that contribute to the local economy,” the city said.

Jeri McLind, an administrative assistant at BOMA, said there are a few spots left to attend the luncheon.

To RSVP, call McLind at 473-8200.

“Noon (today) would be the latest because we’re pushing it now as far as RSVPs,” she said, adding that there are a few seats for walk-ins, too.

The cost is $25 for RSVPs and $30 at the door, she said.

Former City Clerk Kathryn Young

The city of Colorado Springs has landed on a list of “Top Ethical Failures” in Colorado in 2011 because of its embarrassing confusion about campaign finance laws.

“Colorado Springs’ first municipal election under its new “strong mayor” system revealed a city incapable of enforcing, or sometimes even understanding, its own election laws,” Colorado Ethics Watch wrote in its fourth annual report of what it describes as ethical blunders.

“In fact, Colorado Springs government actively fought against transparency when it refused to enforce its own newly adopted rules,” the group said.

The group’s report, called Ethics Roundup: Top Ethical Failures of 2011, highlights “Colorado’s public officials, agencies and municipalities who have either committed ethics violations or shown significant lack of judgment that places their behavior in the top tier of ethical failures in the state in the past year,” the group said.

“Only by paying attention to the actions of our government agencies and officials, identifying ethical lapses, and shining a light on them will we be assured to have what Colorado voters have demanded – transparent and accountable public leaders,” said Luis Toro, director of Colorado Ethics Watch, said in a news release.

Ethics Watch said it “honed in on the largest controversies” to come up with the report.

“The most egregious of ethical failures took place in Adams County, in the Secretary of State’s Office, and in Colorado Springs, where multiple examples demonstrate a consistent lack of regard for ethics rules, laws and values,” the group said.

The read the full report, click here.

When Colorado Springs voters approved a switch to a strong-mayor form of government, a $96,000-a-year salary for the mayor was part of the package.

Now, it’s time that City Council members were paid $96,000, too, said City Councilman Tim Leigh, who was elected in April.

“Frankly, I think that the salary should be more than that,” he said.

“Look at it this way,” he said. “You have nine well-intended, part-time people trying to run a multiple billion dollar enterprise (that includes oversight of Colorado Springs Utilities and Memorial Health System). That is silly on its face and should be insulting to the citizens of Colorado Springs.”

Council members are currently paid $6,250 a year.

Under Leigh’s proposal, the total cost to taxpayers would be $864,000.

Leigh, who was elected to a two-year term, said he plans to bring a proposal to increase council members’ pay in front of council before his term is up.

“This is not like some hidden, quiet, behind-the-scenes conversation,” he said. “It is something that people talk about all the time, yet we have not had the gravitas to bring it up and get right out in front of everybody currently.”

Councilman Merv Bennett said he would not advocate a pay increase.

“I’m doing this because I want to serve the community, and I knew what I was getting into from the beginning,” Bennett said. “Now, having said that, if personally I was not involved, I would be supportive of that.”

Bennett, who puts in up to 45 hours a week as a councilman, said a salary increase for council members would be a “positive thing” for the future. But he said he would prefer that the public — not council — push the idea.

“I think the pay for council is something that it’s important for our future. It’s not what I’m focused on right now,” he said. “I think we’ve got other issues that we need to address, like the economy and jobs and Memorial (Health System), the things like that.”

Councilwoman Brandy Williams said council members “definitely” need to be paid more than $6,250 a year.

“I don’t know that $96,000 is where I would start at,” she said. “But I think for a city of 416,000, that we really need to look at what we are paying our representatives.”

In Denver, the council president is paid $87,539 annually and council members are paid $78,173.

Pueblo pays its council president $10,800 a year and its council members $8,400 a year.

Leigh said he wants to “engage the citizens in this conversation” and encouraged them to contact their council members to express their opinions about a proposed salary increase.

“Here’s where I get beat up: I get beat up because people don’t think I care about what people say. That’s totally wrong,” said Leigh, who was criticized for saying that a public hearing in October on the mayor’s proposed 2012 budget was a waste of time.

Leigh said his proposal could trigger accusations that he is trying to “feather his bed,” which he said isn’t true. Still, he said he would accept more pay while in office.

“I would not be against accepting pay if the citizens voted for that,” he said. “In other words, I wouldn’t say that it had to be something that would start six years from now.”