Mike Staten

From the Riverdale City Citizens facebook page:

My website has an article I wrote two years ago that, I think is at the heart of….mayor-council communications. This is also how I would answer your question. Here's the link: http://riverdalemayoralissues.blogspot.com.  To make a long story short, the citizens of Riverdale voted over 8 years ago for the form of government we have now, that is, a relatively strong mayor and a relatively weak council.  I think the public was poorly informed about what they choose and that many, if not all, of the frustrations and difficulties described are a direct result of this decision.  In order to reverse it, since it was decided by referendum, it would have to go back to a public referendum.oralissues.blogspot.comTo make a long story short, the citizens of Riverdale voted over 8 years ago for the form of government that we have now, that is, a relatively strong mayor and relatively weak council. I think the public was poorly informed about what they chose, and that many, if not all, of the frustrations and difficulties described are a direct result of this decision. In order to reverse it, since it was decided by referendum, it would have to go back to a public referendum.To make a long story short, the citizens of Riverdale voted over 8 years ago for the form of government that we have now, that is, a relatively strong mayor and relatively weak council. I think the public was poorly informed about what they chose, and that many, if not all, of the frustrations and difficulties described are a direct result of this decision. In order to reverse it, since it was decided by referendum, it would have to go back to a public referendum.

From Staten’s website:

To make a long story short, the citizens of Riverdale voted over 8 years ago for the form of government that we have now, that is, a relatively strong mayor and relatively weak council. I think the public was poorly informed about what they chose, and that many, if not all, of the frustrations and difficulties described are a direct result of this decision. In order to reverse it, since it was decided by referendum, it would have to go back to a public referendum.The decision by the council to go to a city-manager-by-ordinance form of government raised public outcry - I as a voter was told that the decision created a full-time position that supplanted the mayor's authority, that the mayor was now only a figurehead, and that the city manager had all the authority and was an appointed position, so therefore the voice of the people was decreased. It seemed a ploy by the city council to seize powers away from the mayor. In hindsight, it appears that the opposite of all of that is true - rather than an additional full-time position, it was a changing of duties for an already-employed member of staff. Rather than the mayor being only a figurehead, he could put more attention to serving the needs of the community in relation to other cities, the county, and state. Rather than the public having less voice, they have more because the council is reported to directly by the city manager instead of receiving all their information through the mayor who can control the flow of information as he sees fit.

Because of the public outcry, however, it went to referendum, and those opposed to this new form of government were effective in convincing the voting public of their arguments against it, and by referendum the city went back to the 'traditional' form of government with a city administrator and with the mayor as CEO once again. Because this went to the public for referendum, the only way to reverse the decision is by another referendum. My point in my letter to the candidates for mayor is that the issue was misunderstood by the public, as I explained in the previous paragraph, and as such, the city made a decision with consequences they are now living with, of a council that is less informed than I believe they need to be in order to make wise choices for Riverdale. Instead of the decision process being a team effort between council members who represent different professional backgrounds and perspectives, all information is funneled through a single position that has the ability to restrict the role and efficacy of the council. I believe that much of the criticism the mayor is receiving by so many parties right now, about poor communication or choosing favorites on the council, is not so much a result of him not doing his job, but rather of him doing his job the way it is set up. I would like to see whoever fills the position of mayor this next term do more to inform, involve, and work with the council, since it is my opinion that the voters of Riverdale did not get what they were expecting when they voted for the traditional form of government. Perhaps the people should reverse their decision, but that is not up to the council anymore.