Editorial: Council pres, majority, silent on city admin proposal, and that’s not OK

By Brandi Makuski

Members of the Stevens Point Common Council will soon be asked to vote on creating an administrator position to help oversee city government.

Well, a part of the city government.

A small part.

On Monday, the city’s Personnel Committee—Mary Kneebone (D9), Lara Broderick (D4), Sam Lang (D9), Jacqui Guthrie (D2), and Dale Steinmetz (D6)—will vote on whether to forward the proposal to create the executive role to the full Common Council, despite concerns over cost and the proposed role’s limited scope of authority over four of the city’s nine departments.

Some department heads have expressed frustration, citing existing understaffing and approved positions currently unfunded due to budget constraints. City Treasurer Corey Ladick says he doesn’t know how the position could be paid for, while City Attorney Andrew Beveridge has raised concerns over a lack of overall government stability the new role could impose.

But very few members of the public have spoken about the matter during city meetings. That’s curious, considering how many objections we’ve seen publicly raised over everything from beekeeping permits to the Stanley St. road diet to the Bus. 51 reconstruction.

None of the great institutions in our community have spoken up on this proposed seismic change, either. The Portage Co. Business Council, League of Women Voters, UW-Stevens Point, Stevens Point Area Public School District, student government groups, and area business and tourism groups have all been mum on the issue. At least, publicly.

Also problematic is the lack of news coverage surrounding the issue. The Metro Wire has been the only news outlet to report on this issue extensively since it was first introduced last summer. Why?

Knowing a vote was likely in March, we emailed all 11 city alders on Feb. 4 to ask three specific questions on the matter.

Only three (Dean Shuda, Sam Lang, and Shaun Morrow) responded by our requested deadline of Feb. 7. Councilwoman Ginger Keymer responded a week later, but only after we asked her to do so via her work email. While Keymer did not specifically answer our questions, she did send a general statement on Feb. 15:

In terms of transition from a full time Mayor to a part-time Mayor and City Administrator, I am on the fence; I can see merit to both approaches with success for each ultimately dependent on who is holding the position, not their title. I think having a City Administrator with a strong background and experience in business, finance, and management would be of great value to the city. I’m aware that many, if not most cities and villages our size, use the City Manager/Administrator structure with success. That said, I know there are segments of the public that would be unhappy with that leadership transition and some residents who would view it as an attack on the current mayor and the appointment of an Administrator as a loss of their voice. A City Administrator is also a very expensive position to fund, and even with a significant reduction in the Mayors Office budget, additional funding would be needed.

Councilwoman Jacquie Guthrie of District 2, who has driven much of the public conversation on the issue, also failed to respond to the Metro Wire’s request for comment. She did, however, send a letter to her Council brethren on March 5 reinforcing her belief that creating the role was the best court of action.

Concern over the general lack of response aside—none of the other seven alders even responded with a “No comment” comment—what’s most concerning is the lack of comment from District 1 Alderman and Council President Marc Christianson. Christianson himself introduced the proposal in July 2024, initially suggesting that the city shift executive responsibilities from the mayor to a full-time administrator.

Our staff wasn’t satisfied with Mr. Christianson’s silence. So, following the Feb. 17 Common Council meeting, this reporter asked him, in person, for a response. He declined to provide a comment, so this reporter followed him into the parking lot to press for an answer, suggesting that the public should hear from the Council President. He did not stop to answer any questions, quickly walking to his car and saying he wouldn’t “debate the issue in the press,” adding only that “it’s a big conversation,” and refusing to give any definition on where he stood.

From Christianson’s initial proposal that reduces the mayor’s duties to strictly ceremonial, to Ms. Keymer’s suggestion earlier in this story that the change could involve a “significant reduction in the mayor’s office budget,” there’s more than enough reasonable doubt that the Council majority is merely seeking to add an administrator rather than to replace the mayor.

The mayor is one of four at-large electeds who lead this city, along with the city attorney, clerk, and comptroller-treasurer. These individuals were elected by the whole of the city, not individual districts, and act as the moral, financial, and legal centers acting in the best interest of taxpayers. Council members should remember this, and recognize that they play a separate role in the legislative branch of city government, separate from the mayor’s place in the executive branch.

The proposal to install a city administrator is in real danger of being passed without any public objection. It would not require a referendum vote or a change to the city’s charter; only a simple majority of the Council voting to change the ordinance.

We strongly encourage you to read everything you can get your hands on about this issue. Tell your friends, your family, and your co-workers who live in the city to do the same. Write to your City Council representative, letting them know how you feel on the matter. Write an open letter. Show up at city meetings and speak up during the public comment period.

Residents need to speak out before it’s too late to do so.