About 10 miles from Springfield City Hall, Mike Sullivan is in his fifth, and final, two-year term as mayor of Holyoke. He used to wish the city had four-year mayoral terms, which, he said, would give the officeholder more time to implement his or her agenda and policies.
But over time, Sullivan told the Advocate, his thinking changed. "Four years is more appropriate than two years," he said. "But are we asking the right question? Do we need a mayor at all?"
Sullivan—who announced last year that he wouldn't be seeking a sixth term—hopes to see a charter review process begin in Holyoke. And he would like to see the city switch from its current "strong mayor" form of government to the Plan E form.
Plan E, as defined by state law, is the "council/manager" form, in which the city is run by a professional manager along with an elected City Council. The manager is appointed by the Council to handle daily government operations, while the Council makes policy. (In some cities with a Plan E form of government, such as Worcester, the councilor who receives the most votes becomes the mayor, although it's mostly a ceremonial role.)
"I think having a professional, trained manager to run the day-to-day operations would defuse some of the political issues," said Sullivan, who, after almost a decade in office, sounds weary of political bickering and posturing. "The Council would have the political power. The manager would report to them, and ideally be driven by policy, not politics."
While Sullivan is focused primarily on his hometown, he thinks that as Springfield considers extending its two-year mayoral term to four years (see main story), the city would benefit from thinking about a more significant change, to a city manager. Sullivan believes that the Plan E form of government works well in cities similar to Springfield, such as Lowell and Worcester. While those cities are not without problems, he said, compared to Springfield, "their problems seem to be much less pronounced."
In Springfield, City Councilor Tim Rooke says he, too, finds the idea of a city manager appealing. He points to the Finance Control Board, appointed by the Legislature in 2004 to oversee city finances, as an example of what professional—versus politically elected—leadership can do for a city. The board consists of three members appointed by the governor, as well as Springfield's mayor and City Council president. Its current chair is venture capitalist and philanthropist (and one-time gubernatorial candidate) Chris Gabrieli.
While the Control Board's tenure in the city has been controversial, Rooke is among those who see the board as a blessing, restoring much-needed stability to Springfield's finances and government. Along the way, the board has taken a number of politically unpopular positions, from its tough stands negotiating city employee contracts to its creation of a fee for trash pickup.
"Many of the decisions made by the Control Board could have been made by elected officials, but they were never made," said Rooke, who served on the board during his tenure as Council president in 2005. "What I have found in working with and serving on the Control Board is that professional individuals, who are not affected by unpopular decisions, are far more effective at governing than elected officials are. Even though a decision may be unpopular, it doesn't necessarily mean it's not the best decision for a city." But too often, Rooke said, elected officials steer clear of those kinds of decisions, for fear of alienating voters.
While Rooke finds the city manager notion appealing, he added, he doesn't see evidence in Springfield of widespread support for such a major change, which would require a charter review, a lengthy and complicated process. Jeffrey Ciuffreda, vice president for government affairs for the Affiliated Chambers of Commerce of Greater Springfield—which lobbied to get a four-year mayoral term on the Springfield ballot this fall—says his group looked into whether various other forms of government would work for the city. In the end, he said, "We decided the strong-mayor form of government for Springfield was the better vehicle."
*
Elsewhere in the state, others are making the pitch for fewer mayors. Tom Keane, who served as a Boston city councilor in the 1990s and now writes for the Boston Globe, last year wrote an intriguing article for the Globe Sunday magazine in which he argued that even so established an institution as the Boston mayoralty may have outlived its usefulness. Pointing to the abysmally low voter turnout rates in Boston city elections, Keane wrote, "Maybe local politics really doesn't matter after all. … Could it simply be that the task of running a city or town these days is less political than it is managerial, less ideological than it is technical—and that voters have finally figured that out?"
The great majority of Massachusetts' communities are helmed by professional managers, not mayors, Keane noted. "And why not?" he wrote. "There's a lot of research that suggests professional administrators do a better job than elected officials when it comes to delivering services effectively. For one, they actually go to school to learn their jobs, getting degrees such as a master's in public administration. They're hired under long-term contracts, and because they don't have to worry about elections, they're not constantly trying to placate interest groups. That means, for example, that they can negotiate with public employee unions without fearing their opposition come the next election."
