Jeremy Ratliff
Reporter
Along with choosing their candidate for the oval office and six contested partisan races in tomorrow’s General Election, city of Merrill voters will also be asked to choose if the once-elected city Street Commissioner position should be resurrected.
The beginning of the end for the long-standing position was originally ear marked by a unanimous council vote on Dec. 8 of last year, eliminating the elected street commissioner position via charter ordinance, in favor of a Director of Public Works.
Dave Sukow-6th District alderman at the time- abstained. Sukow has since been replaced by Mary Ball, after filing for non-candidacy in the April election.
During a public hearing prior to council discussion, former council president Steve Hass and current City Clerk Bill Heideman spoke in opposition to the ordinance.
Hass cited a letter submitted by City Administrator Dave Johnson to local newspapers, in which Hass felt Johnson was favoring the education of an appointed official, over the hands-on experience of an elected official.
Hass indicated he was appalled by Johnson’s letter.
“Sometimes life experience is better than what’s in the books,” Hass stated. “Voters can get rid of an elected official easier than the common council can get rid of an appointed official. Some of the officials appointed by the city over the last couple years haven’t been too impressive.”
When Heideman took the floor, he stood from his position beside the mayor and relocated to the podium, where he voiced his opposition based on personal confidence in city voters to make their own choices, rather than appoint officials.
“Having been born and raised in Merrill, I am comfortable and confident our voters can elect a competent street commissioner,” Heideman said.
Both men spoke of their belief in voters historically selecting qualified and competent candidates.
Retired educator Gene Bebel spoke in favor of the ordinance, stating, “I don’t foresee the street commissioner position being in the best interest of the future of the city.”
During council discussion following a second and third reading of the ordinance, Sukow expressed discontent with how the public hearing process was handled on Dec. 8.
“I feel we put the cart before the horse here,” he said. “We should have had this public hearing first, before we even began discussing the ordinance. By doing this, we are sending the message, ‘Ok, we will hear what you have to say, but our minds are already made up.’ I just don’t think this was the right way to go about things and that’s all I have to say.”
Other council members spoke in favor of the ordinance.
Second district alderman Pete Lokemoen stated he was in agreement with Hass and Heideman, but also spoke in favor of the ordinance.
“I do not disagree with what Mr. Hass and Mr. Heideman said. We should work toward appointing better officials,” he said. “But I am not opposed to eliminating the elected street commissioner position. Without certain individuals stirring up and raising the issue, I have found it’s a non-issue with our voters.”
Alderman Ryan Schwartzman echoed Lokemoen, stating he too had not heard any opposition from voters and cited historical references of appointed officials in the city; dating back to the city’s first police chief being appointed.
“I feel the city has moved beyond the need for an elected street commissioner,” Schwartzman said. “Moving into the 21st century, it’s time to bring in a public works director.”
The decision left opponents vowing to contest in the form of a circulated petition.
That petition was received by the city on Feb. 15, just one day before the new charter ordinance eliminating the elected position was to go into effect. The petition contained a total of 277 votes, 263 of which were verified as valid. Only 230 signatures were required to submit the petition.
The number of required signatures is equal to seven percent of the votes cast in the city during the most recent governor election. In the November 2014 election, 3,276 votes were cast in the city of Merrill.
Council acknowledgement of the petition set the stage for the Nov. 8 referendum question, as approved on July 12.
“Should the elected office of Merrill Street Commissioner be eliminated?”
While former Council President and 2nd District Alderman Steve Hass remains steadfast in supporting the position of elected Street Commissioner, Director of Public Work/City Engineer Rod Akey stands opposed.
The Merrill Foto News recently met with both gentlemen and the pair was asked identical questions regarding their views of the referendum. Those questions and answers are indicated below:
Name: Rod Akey
Position(s) Held: City Engineer/Director of Public Works-10 months.
Previous owner of Akey Engineering, provided engineering services to the
City since 2014.
General Thoughts on Re-Instating the Position of Elected Street Commissioner:
“The only qualifications for an elected Street Commissioner position are to be 18 years old and a resident city of Merrill. If there is an opening, anyone can run for the position whether they have background qualifications or not.”
“In fact we have already had people run for the position in the past, who really had no qualifications whatsoever. By keeping this an appointed position, we can assure the person we have in this role is qualified. As an elected position, there is no guarantee of a qualified person being selected, compared to a hiring process.
“The candidate pool could be smaller in an election and could be more of a popularity contest versus an emphasis on background and qualifications.”
Various perspectives on accountability, job performance and oversight have been discussed in terms of an elected Street Commissioner versus an appointed position. What is your perspective on these factors?
“I feel an appointed superintendent is held just as accountable as an elected commissioner, if not more so. They are required to report to the Board of Public Works and to myself. An elected official would hold their position whether they were doing a satisfactory job or not, until their term is up. Even then, they could still be re-elected. An appointed official would be subject to disciplinary action and/or termination for unsatisfactory performance. Thankfully, we have not had anything close to that situation.”
Final thoughts:
“I would like to ask the voters to consider the idea of this being a multi-million dollar department of the city. I feel it’s better to have someone with management and construction experience in the position of street superintendent, versus an elected street commissioner position which may not have the necessary background and qualifications to effectively lead this department. If the street superintendent position is not a good fit, then why are 99.9% of these positions across the country, appointed?
Name: Steve Hass
Position(s) Held: Former 2nd District Alderman-10 years; Former Council President- 6 years
General Thoughts on Re-Instating the Position of Elected Street Commissioner:
“Street Commissioner was always an elected position before and the people have done a great job electing street commissioners. When you’re an elected official, technically you just have to show up the first day and last day to collect your check.
“Our Street Commissioners have never taken advantage of that. They have always gone above and beyond their duties.
“As an example of personal experience, when I served as council president I came in early one morning to observe how snow plow operations are performed. Dick Lupton was commissioner at the time and he came in around 1 am, which was the same time as I came in. I left at 6:30 a.m. to go to work and he stayed for the rest of the day. From what I had been told, that wasn’t an isolated incident. He had gone above and beyond in that manner quite frequently. This was a common trait of elected commissioners over the 10 years I served on the council. From what I understood if employees were at work so was the street commissioner.”
Various perspectives on accountability, job performance and oversight have been discussed in terms of an elected Street Commissioner versus an appointed position. What is your perspective on these factors?
“An appointed official isn’t as accountable to the people as an elected official. When you’re an elected official, you’re going to do more to please the people whereas and appointed official has to go to a supervisor to get things done.
“An elected official can act on a complaint for example rather than take the time to seek permission to act. In the past when I personally have had an issue and reported it to an elected commissioner, the problem was rectified fright away. That hasn’t been the case since we have had an appointed official.”
Final Thoughts:
“We have always had an elected street commissioner position. If we are considering eliminating that position, then the decision should ultimately be up to the voters to make, rather than the council. There was another referendum not too long ago to eliminate the elected street commissioner position and voters overwhelmingly defeated it.”
—
According to City Administrator Dave Johnson, if the referendum is defeated and the position of elected-Street Commissioner is re-instated, the future of the position would be in the hands of the Common Council. His recommendation would be for the current City Engineer/Director of Public Works and Street Superintendent positions to remain unchanged and intact.
“The council would have a few options in terms of assigning duties and the role for the street commissioner,” he explained, “but it would most likely not be the same as before. The Street Superintendent and Director of Public Works would most likely remain full-time positions in the same roles they currently hold. But I can tell you things have been running a lot smoother and more efficient, with the current positions we have in place.”