Councilors dissect mayor’s plan to strengthen office
Webber proposes funding 5 new positions, says they are ‘budget neutral’
City councilors on Tuesday dissected Mayor Alan Webber’s proposal to strengthen and “professionalize” his office, turning a chunk of the second day of annual budget hearings into something of a referendum on the balance of power between the mayor and council in the city’s new stronger-mayor system.
Webber has proposed five new positions for the next fiscal year to be placed under the purview of his office: a chief of staff, two constituent services representatives, a “neighborhood engagement” director and a City Council liaison, who would assist all eight councilors in handling constituent concerns.
Webber has also proposed folding the constituent services office and its three workers into the Mayor’s Office to enhance his oversight of city staffers’ responses to constituent problems. The constituent services office now reports to the deputy city manager.
“I’m hoping we can pivot from being responsive to proactive,” Webber said.
The total salary and benefits for the proposed positions in the mayor’s office would cost roughly $422,000 annually; they are “budget neutral,” Webber said, as the roles will be funded by combining city jobs that have been budgeted but left vacant.
But councilors, while saying they generally support the idea of beefed-up and broader services for their constituents, took issue with some of the specifics.
In particular, the proposed council liaison, who Webber said would report to the councilors themselves, struck councilors as a half-measure — or too much work for one person.
“I would hate to have that job,” cracked Councilor Carol Romero-Wirth.
From there, a good-natured but pointed discussion developed over who on the governing body will bear responsibility
for constituent issues, where the line will be drawn between the mayor and council and what exactly the mayor can do to expand the services offered and managed by his office.
The lengthy talk reflected the stillunsettled nature of the division of power within the city’s new governance structure — between the new full-time mayor, who is both the executive at the head of city administration and a
member of the nine-person governing body, and the other eight members of that governing body, part-time councilors responsible for policy-setting and oversight.
“We don’t have a perfect separation of powers between the executive and legislative” branches, said Romero-Wirth, who was a member of the commission
that proposed the shift to a fulltime mayor. “We’re sort of this blend. But I think we [councilors] need to be careful, to stand our ground, and be responsible for the governing of this city — the check against the executive and the bureaucracy.
“If we get the executive at the helm and all power stems from there, I don’t think that would be completely healthy,” she added. “Although that might be fun for the mayor.”
Webber said the ambiguity of who checks whose authority or requests, and when, was understandable given the novelty of the full-time mayor’s role.
“I don’t think it’s a power clash of any kind; it’s simply a question of operational clarity,” Webber said. “… At the same time, I have to think about future mayors who will look back and say, ‘Why did that guy give away the store?’ ”
Councilor Mike Harris floated the idea of two council liaisons, each of whom would work with two of the city’s four geographic districts as a way to bolster the council’s ability to respond to residents more in line with what Webber has proposed for his own office.
“I do want to make sure, as we develop this strong mayor [position] … I don’t want it to be a weak council,” Harris said.
The text of the city’s annual operating budget stated the council liaison would report to Webber’s chief of staff, Jarel Lapan Hill — though Webber offered a correction, saying his intention was that the liaison report to councilors.
Councilor Signe Lindell, however, said she’d prefer it the other way around.
“It shouldn’t be a nebulous person who’s reporting to all eight councilors,” she said. “They need to have a central reporting place.”
Councilor Roman Abeyta, formerly Santa Fe County manager, seemed to agree, saying, “I certainly wouldn’t want to be managed by eight councilors.”
He mentioned that each of the five Santa Fe County commissioners has a constituent liaison.
“My preference would be, OK, you get the constituent services pieces and the council liaison piece,” Abeyta told Webber. “But let’s come up with a plan so it does feel like they are our staff, also, and not just the mayor’s staff.
“But I told you before,” he added, “just tell me where to go. All I care about is my constituents’ requests get taken care of.”
Councilors also questioned what would now be the roles and responsibilities of the city manager and deputy city manager, both six-figure-salaried positions.
The deputy city manager position is included in the proposed budget for the next fiscal year, though Webber has suggested the position could be mothballed as he plans to overhaul the city’s organizational chart.
Webber’s proposal for a neighborhood engagement director — he described it as a “synthesizer, an aggregator” of neighborhood livability concerns — also raised concerns among councilors who said the job description was imprecise.
“We’re all treading lightly,” Councilor Chris Rivera said. “And maybe defining those roles is our best next step.”
The city Finance Committee members ultimately voted to postpone consideration of the budget for the general government department, which includes Webber’s budget request for his office.
They’ll take it up again Wednesday as the budget hearings continue at City Hall.