On Nov. 6, Fairhope residents will be asked to vote “for or against” a change in the city’s current form of government. The current form is strong council/weak mayor, in which five council members and a mayor are elected at-large. The proposed form is council/manager, in which the council is made up of three council members elected by districts, one council member and a mayor elected at-large.

While there may be pros and cons to both types of government, the reasons to vote against the proposed change far outnumber the reasons to vote in its favor. Fairhope residents know all too well about unintentional consequences that happen in our elections and need to be leery or anyone or any group that promises quick-fix solutions or major changes for the sake of change.

The first question: “Is the proposed change a reaction to the current climate in our city’s government?” Citizens are naturally distressed by the administration and council’s inability to work together toward positive improvements and changes. But the crisis is not the fault of the type of government; rather, it’s personalities and experience (or the lack thereof) of the people involved.

As citizens, we are charged with exercising our right to vote by electing real leaders—people who understand that public service is a privilege and an honor, not an 8-5 job consumed by meetings and budgets. It’s servant leadership in which those elected by the people want to serve, first. They provide vision, and their team understands their expectations and desired outcomes. They set the work environment—the culture—so that the vision and goals are accomplished.

Changing to council/manager essentially gives that important role to the hired city manager, thus taking away the voter’s role in selecting who that person should be—the mayor. It also reduces the current system’s set of checks and balances and divisions of power. As citizens, we rely on the structure and safety of this system to protect our interests.

Some say the council/manager form will eliminate the “politics.” There will always be politics. For instance, in the council/manager form, the mayor serves as president of the council, sets the agenda, AND votes. Currently, the city council president sets the agenda, with input from the mayor and fellow council members. The mayor does not sit on the council and does not vote. (Checks and balances).

Politics would even be created in hiring the city manager. If only three members of the council vote in favor of the city manager, that leaves two who were, from the start, not in favor of that person as city manager. Again, more politics.

Below are unanswered questions and practical reasons for voting NO to the change in government:

·      The vote was delayed because of a lack of information. Nothing has changed. The only question on the ballot is--do you want a City Manager or not? Nothing about districts.

·      A yes vote will guarantee districts. Districts have the potential to further divide our town. Currently, all council members are engaged in all areas of town--the needs in one area are just as much a concern as the needs in another. We should want every elected member of the council, and every citizen, to feel that way.

·      How will the districts be drawn? Who will make the final decision on the districts?

This form of government does not give the Mayor less power. It only means that the Mayor will not run the day-to-day or manage the personnel BUT they gain a vote on the City Council and set the agenda for the meetings. Currently, that position can rotate among the Council so if one person abuses the power they can be replaced. This will not be the case with this form of government. 

·      Only 16 cities out of 460 in the State of Alabama have a council/manager form of government. Why not more? And how many had that type and switched back? What are the populations of those 16 cities? And do they pay higher taxes?

·      The form of government is defined by the State of Alabama. Changes are based on population size. The new law allowing this vote has never been challenged. Fairhope is the first to put it to a test. How much would it cost the taxpayers if it is challenged?

·      The City Manager will have an employment contract—a contract that could not be broken without a buyout. This would have the potential to cost the city more money and another big salary. Professional, highly-credentialed city managers would likely not accept a position that did not have contracts or buyouts.

·      If the proponents feel that running the city has become too complex for a mayor, the City Council could fund a City Administrator position TOMORROW, without fundamentally changing the form of government.

Diana Brewer

Former Fairhope Council Member