Editorial: Residents should pay very close attention to this City Council

By Brandi Makuski

Stevens Point could be on the cusp of a major shift in how it is governed, and the voters should pay close attention to what’s happening in city government.

Some members of the Stevens Point Common Council appear intent on stripping the mayor’s role of power. Taking over the daily management and oversight of city business would be a hired, not elected, city administrator who answers to the Council.

Though no vote has been taken on this seismic issue, it was the topic of an hourlong discussion at the Aug. 12 meeting of the city’s Personnel Committee.

The move could eliminate the only at-large elected city executive. “At-large” means a person elected to represent the whole of the city. Alders, also known as Council members, are elected by their respective districts. The Council acts as a counterbalance to the mayor’s office, and vice-versa.

The idea became public at the end of June by D1 Councilman Marc Christianson when he submitted specific documents for inclusion to the July 8 Personnel Committee meeting packet. The documents introduced hiring a full-time administrator while reducing the mayor’s role to a part-time gig. He later threw two city staff members assembling the meeting packet under the bus, insisting they misunderstood the documents he sent.

For those interested, the cost of the proposed city administrator would be at least $180,000.

But just one month after Christianson’s proposal, Councilwoman Jacqui Guthrie of D2 publicly asked for a draft ordinance reducing the mayor’s role to a ceremonial one. Most concerningly, her suggestion came without any apparent surprise or concern from others on the Personnel Committee. It’s as if some of them had privately discussed the issue before it went public.

Some on this Council seem to have missed — or, at least, forgotten — some basic tenets of American government. It’s taught in second grade, but let’s do a quick recap:

Like the U.S. Constitution, the Wisconsin Constitution provides for three branches of government, each with its own powers. The Separation of Powers Doctrine is a “fundamental principl[e] of the American constitutional system.” It can be difficult to apply in practice, particularly concerning disputes between the legislative (Council) and executive (mayoral) branches, and often, its implementation has been influenced by the political affiliations of those in elected positions, leading to at least a perception of bias.

These checks and balances are in place for several reasons:

• Accountability: Ensures that all branches of municipal government are held responsible for their actions and decisions.
• Prevention of Power Abuse: Prevent any single branch or official from accumulating too much power, reducing the risk of corruption and authoritarian rule.
• Transparency: Promotes openness in decision-making processes, allowing citizens to stay informed and involved in government actions.
• Balanced Decision-Making: Encourages collaboration and dialogue among different branches of government, leading to more thoughtful and well-rounded policies.
• Protection of Public Interest: Ensures that all government actions and decisions are made with the community’s best interest in mind.
• Safeguarding Democracy: Maintains democratic principles by distributing power fairly and ensuring that local governance reflects the will of the people.
• Financial Oversight: Ensures that spending and financial decisions are scrutinized by multiple entities, protecting taxpayer money from misuse.

Now, consider the verbiage used by Ms. Guthrie, who, on Aug. 12, asked city staff to create a draft ordinance for a “ceremonial mayoral position that does not do operational oversight, but rather does…what’s another word for ceremonial? All of the meeting and greeting and representation and advocacy for this community differentiated from an operational, strategic organizer of the [department] directors.”

She emphasized that having such a draft would provide the Council with concrete content to discuss and help clarify the potential structural changes some of the elected members wanted to employ.

“Whether it’s a draft statute that would differentiate between city administrator and a mayoral role, and working with Council to delineate what would need to be updated to differentiate that, if a draft job description for a more ceremonial role and an additional city administrator with operational oversight, whether it’s a job description or a city statute, I’d like to see drafts of that so that we can discuss real content,” she said.

Unfortunately, Ms. Guthrie, and some others on the Council, seem unaware that state statutes already provide the information she seeks. The mayor’s role is already outlined in State Statute 62.09:

“The mayor shall be the chief executive officer. The mayor shall take care that city ordinances and state laws are observed and enforced and that all city officers and employees discharge their duties. The mayor shall from time to time give the council such information and recommend such measures as the mayor may deem advantageous to the city. When present the mayor shall preside at the meetings of the council. The mayor shall have the veto power as to all acts of the council, except such as to which it is expressly or by necessary implication otherwise provided. All such acts shall be submitted to the mayor by the clerk and shall be in force upon approval evidenced by the mayor’s signature, or upon failing to approve or disapprove within 5 days, which fact shall be certified thereon by the clerk. If the mayor disapproves the mayor’s objections shall be filed with the clerk, who shall present them to the council at its next meeting. A two-thirds vote of all the members of the council shall then make the act effective notwithstanding the objections of the mayor.

So is the City Council’s role, explained in State 62.11:

Except as elsewhere in the statutes specifically provided, the council shall have the management and control of the city property, finances, highways, navigable waters, and the public service, and shall have power to act for the government and good order of the city, for its commercial benefit, and for the health, safety, and welfare of the public, and may carry out its powers by license, regulation, suppression, borrowing of money, tax levy, appropriation, fine, imprisonment, confiscation, and other necessary or convenient means. The powers hereby conferred shall be in addition to all other grants, and shall be limited only by express language.

Not everyone on the Personnel Committee fully agreed with Guthrie, or previously with Christianson’s proposal. Some, including D6 Councilman Dale Steinmetz and Councilwoman Mary Kneebone (D7) asked for a thorough investigation to ensure it would improve city government — but no one directly opposed the idea, and all agreed to continue the discussion.

Considering the lack of apparent deficiencies such a change might address, this issue seems to be the latest in a slew of Council solutions in search of a problem. Like a proposal to remove the non-agenda public comment period from city committee meetings, over-budget bicycle lanes, restricting city employees’ communication with the press, painting 39 sharrows stencils on Prentice St., changing the name of the Public Protection Committee to the General Government and Public Policy Committee, thereby changing the focus of the committee, and putting Stanley St. on a road diet (even though the public works director said it wouldn’t improve safety) and then bragging about having done it just because they could.

Instead, perhaps this Council could focus on some of the very real problems that already exist and have direct and immediate impacts on our community: Homelessness, understaffing in Every. Single. City. Department., serious staffing shortages in police and fire departments, lack of garage space for a city police fleet, outdated municipal vehicles, inadequacies in the downtown district, underperforming TIF Districts, and, well…you get the idea.

Those who are at-large elected need to lead this city. Lead without fear and without a need to be loved by strangers. That leadership needs to be the moral center that acts in the best interest of taxpayers. Council members should remember this, and recognize that they play a separate role from the at-large elected.

The proposal to install a city administrator is in real danger of being passed quietly. 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; and from every local news outlet covering it. Tell your friends, your family, and your co-workers to do the same. Write open letters to every news outlet in Portage Co. with your thoughts. Write to your City Council representative, letting them know how you feel about whether or not the city should retain its checks and balances. Show up at city meetings and speak up during the public comment period.

Residents need to speak up.