How would the shareholders of Woolworths or Coles feel if the CEO's of those billion dollar businesses were simply appointed by a consensus vote of the various regional store managers ? Un fortunately, that is exactly how the Mayor of twenty-five of Sydney's thirty-eight councils are chosen - and usually for only a one year stint in office.
New South Wales is considering legislation to put electing the Mayor into the voters hands when the ballet for council elections are conducted. The present system is a leftover from the distant days when councils were mainly concerned with filling in pot holes in the roads, ensuring that there was a tip for residents rubbish - and arranging for the "night soil "to be removed in the days before sewerage. The Mayor - and other councillors - were unpaid. It was a badge of honour to be elected - and absolutely no qualifications were required.
In many instances, the "lucky dip "applies. In the interests of democracy - or more often when political wrangling makes consensus impossible - the names of all the newly elected councillors were put in a hat - and the one drawn became the Mayor.
Today's councils have morphed into billion dollar businesses employing many staff and are comparable with some of the biggest companies listed on the stock exchange. When the commercial world is looking for a new CEO the matter is usually put in the hands of a professional recruiting company - who may charge hundreds of thousands of dollars to cull applicants and prepare a short list for the director's decision.
The profits of that company - and the interests of the shareholders - is directly attributable to the skills of the person selected. Usually the appointment is for a nominated term - and the salary paid is commensurate with the level of seniority. Tenure of office is important because such companies are following a long term development plan and decision making continuity is essential.
There is a big difference between simply electing a "councillor "- and electing a "Mayor ". Those standing and seeking a Mayoral vote will have their business ability and past job record closely examined - and the job should have the salary involved as part of the election criteria. The voters are unlikely to put civic finances into the hands of someone who is seen as "a good bloke "- but not considered capable of running any sort of business.
This raises the question of whether the job of Mayor is capable of being adequately filled by public vote ? Chancing the finances of an entire city will depend entirely on the field of candidates who choose to stand and in many cases the voter's wisdom may be of the "none of these " variety. But if that is the legislated manner of choosing a Mayor - then a person lacking in voter confidence will be assured of the job.
Would we not be better putting the selection of Mayor into professional hands and recruiting from outside the ranks of elected councillors - who would serve as what is usually the board of directors for most public companies ? It seems that the responsibilities involved in running a city have evolved into the arena of "big business ", but the professionalism of ensuring wise management is still stuck in the dark ages.
When this legislation to apply to the role of Mayors is debated in parliament it may make some of our politicians nervous. Running the state is an even bigger venture than running a mere city - and yet the selection of the people we task with the job follows a similar process.
A very dangerous school of thought when "professional standards "start to apply to heigher office !
No comments:
Post a Comment