For more than seventy years, River City has been operating under the council-manager form of government. The community highly values the reorganization steps of its government; a nonpartisan elected city council has been created and it is accountable for hiring the metropolis manager as chief directorial officer. On a one year rotary basis, the mayor is chosen amongst the members of the city. Appointing and dismissing of all workers on a merit basis falls under the manager’s responsibility.
The council had a unique chance as it was attempting to affect financial system through a directorial change. Getting prepared for the new plan of the district, the terms of each commission and board appointments had been planned to end during the year that was approaching. People were to be appointed by the new council to every location that made up commission system and the city’s boards. The members of the council could use the chance to build future political campaigns or decrease the number of commissions and boards, which would save the cost.
The River City’s trend toward a decentralized strategy by ensuring citizens’ involvement sharply contrasted with the reform of the city and the type of the government. This move was supposed to lead to an efficient, professional, economical as well as accountable centralized structure. No member of the council wanted to refuse the whole project, as the majority were supportive, at least of the need of reorganization so as to economize. Nevertheless, each member was against the recommendations in one way or the other. The members of the city council, particularly those recently chosen, were shocked by the general opposition to their effort to save costs and make an organizational change. They thought over their situation and speculated upon the political threats of implementing any of the report’s recommended changes.
They could not defer the decision because of urgent necessities. The quandary was understandable as reorganization was required to streamline accountability and trim expenses. However, the report implementation would face the political opposition from the public. The policy that would make the best use of cost saving and reduce political opposition was to merge the two metropolis worker retirement boards to decrease the cost of cash management, hence boosting the return on savings and correspondingly decreasing the metropolis’s retirement liability. The two existing retirement funds ought to be retained as separate money to be managed by the consolidate panel.
After Christian pondered over the complexity of his situation, he had second thoughts concerning his approval of what has initially appeared to be a directly onward effort at reorganizing metropolis functions, an activity that generally received no or little community attention. He concluded that everybody likes development, but nobody likes transformation. The metropolis board was not necessarily looking for an agent for change when it selected Christian after a countrywide search. However, it was seeking for somebody with the proficiency required to prepare the metropolis for the hard economic times; he was the new director brought in as a appointed gun that would ensure a quick entry and find a way out after executing tough verdicts. However, from Christian’s career viewpoint, River metropolis was a significant step up. In his professional and personal programs, there was a high need to do well by solving the economic problems of the metropolis. However, a chance for transformation came earlier than anticipated. River City electorate accepted a proposal to modify the way people would be nominated to the council. The electorate adopted a customized region plan; in the following general election, metropolis voters would vote for one candidate from every region on a general basis.
Christian recommended that the new board should undertake a study of commission and board operations with the intention of economizing and reforming the system. The members of the council were keen on carrying out the study, although it was earlier than expected. The council unanimously decided to investigate the community affairs based on the neighboring university. The university and Christian negotiated that the study should be large in scope and highlight the requirement for the positive participation of the whole community in the policy making process of the city. It was also planned to utilize the metropolis revenue, employees resources and organizational preparations in the best way, which would helop the commissions and boards to operate effectively and be entirely accountable to electorate and the city.