Survey: Is the mayoralty out of date? 57% say yes.
We asked our readers if they thought the concept of Mayoralty was out of date. Can one man or woman claim to represent the whole community?
The results were fascinating - with many of the "yes" voters leaving detailed comments and suggestions, but a relatively smaller number of the "pro" mayoralty respondents left comments.
Here's a sample of each camp's thoughts. and the detailed result.
- We need a different skill set to what current mayors seem to have or prefer. Today we need collaborative practices which respect and take into account residents' views, rather than behaving as if they know better with their use of outdated autocratic behaviours /practices.
- Mayors, like Kings, probably had their day in the Middle Ages. The concept of a democratically-elected council with a revolving Chairperson would work much better by subduing the ‘cliques’ that tend to form around an authority figure.
- Invariably egos rise very quickly and bullying traits start to appear. A good Chair of the Board (because that is what a mayor is) is a good Chair who allows discussion and has an element of leadership.
- It is twee, ceremonial and pointless
- But what is the present system being replaced with? Ideally, a triumvirate, i.e. 3, elected community representatives with equal voting rights with no vested interests in decision-making processes or outcomes who review recommendations from a wider group of researchers/councillors who place cogent issues before them for voting decisions.
- There are too many conflicts of interest and influence that goes against objective leadership and decision making which is in the best interests of our diverse community.
- 100% agree with your article and its concept. In this day and age it would take a very special person to represent the communities multi-faceted views, especially in the Southern Lakes. And you can say what you want about the current mayor (not a lot from my perspective as a business person) but it’s a tough job in these times.
- It is ridiculous to have these popularity contests for person's that are often not capable of performing the role respectfully to the community. We then have a CEO on excess salaries that actually run the council. The entire concept seems flawed.
- Having a single figure to speak to the public of issues etc is far better than an array of persons who frequently share matters with different emphasis. By having one spokesperson, better clarity can be demanded. However consultation with the community is essential
- A district needs a voice - having every councillor with a different spin on issues only leads to total confusion
- Better than alternative of new council appointing chairman / mayor from elected members. Can vote on mayors performance every 3 years, answerable to all ratepayers
- Sadly there has to be someone to try and pull the council together. "Chairman/woman" would just be a different name for the job.
- A civic leader is an important role, & no more outdated than the Prime Minister.