KHTS with the scoop. I really found McLean's thoughts worthy of comment:
Is McLean damning Pulskamp with faint praise here by calling him, essentially, obendient? I get the sense she thinks the City Council is responsible for the City's solid budget record and its building initiatives throughout the 2000s, when Pulskamp was in his prime. In her view, maybe Pulskamp was merely the implementer of the Council's grand vision. The other Council members give Pulskamp much more credit.
This touches on an old and very fun debate in SCV country: who really runs the City of Santa Clarita? Is it the Council or the staff? If it is a balance of power, what percentage of the agenda is staff-driven vs Council-driven?
Back in my youthful, naive days, I believed the Council really set the agenda for the City. That's the way it's supposed to work in a democracy after all, right?
But after blogging for a few years and studying the issue, I realized our Council are part-time elected "lay people" (for lack of a better word) and they depend a lot on the professional staff to not just implement their vision, but set the agenda for the Council (thus limiting their policy solutions to problems). The Council-Manager form of government was born in the early 20th Century in order to reduce the problems inherent in small city governments, namely cronyism and corruption. It was formed to make cities perform better just as the Civil Service system was being adopted throughout federal, state and local governments.
Of course, every now and then someone like TimBen Boydston gets elected. A man like that sets his own agenda, and staff is forced to react. I like that our City staff is professional, but I also like that TimBen is passionate and detail-oriented. One would hope that forcing the two to work together would make for a better-run City that is also representative of its residents.
Is Pulskamp's departure a sign that that wishful-thinking is wrong?
What do you think? Email me at jeff at scvtalk.com
-----------------
Councilmember Comments on Pulskamp Resignation
Is McLean damning Pulskamp with faint praise here by calling him, essentially, obendient? I get the sense she thinks the City Council is responsible for the City's solid budget record and its building initiatives throughout the 2000s, when Pulskamp was in his prime. In her view, maybe Pulskamp was merely the implementer of the Council's grand vision. The other Council members give Pulskamp much more credit.
This touches on an old and very fun debate in SCV country: who really runs the City of Santa Clarita? Is it the Council or the staff? If it is a balance of power, what percentage of the agenda is staff-driven vs Council-driven?
Back in my youthful, naive days, I believed the Council really set the agenda for the City. That's the way it's supposed to work in a democracy after all, right?
But after blogging for a few years and studying the issue, I realized our Council are part-time elected "lay people" (for lack of a better word) and they depend a lot on the professional staff to not just implement their vision, but set the agenda for the Council (thus limiting their policy solutions to problems). The Council-Manager form of government was born in the early 20th Century in order to reduce the problems inherent in small city governments, namely cronyism and corruption. It was formed to make cities perform better just as the Civil Service system was being adopted throughout federal, state and local governments.
Of course, every now and then someone like TimBen Boydston gets elected. A man like that sets his own agenda, and staff is forced to react. I like that our City staff is professional, but I also like that TimBen is passionate and detail-oriented. One would hope that forcing the two to work together would make for a better-run City that is also representative of its residents.
Is Pulskamp's departure a sign that that wishful-thinking is wrong?
What do you think? Email me at jeff at scvtalk.com
-----------------