by Bob Pinzler
This column is not about why Suja Lowenthal is no longer the Hermosa Beach City Manager, but about what likely contributed to it happening.
The average life expectancy of a City Manager is about five years. The reasons for this are twofold: the length of terms and term limits for the individuals who determine their employment status.
Many people make the mistake of drawing a direct analogy between government and business. While they may look similar on the surface, they are not. Businesses are created to deliver a product or service at a profit. Governments are spending machines, with their incomes being derived from their existence, not their creativity. In addition, their only requirement is that they must balance their budget.
The City Manager is often likened to a Chief Executive Officer in the business world. A better analogy is the Chief Operating Officer, which is a far more functional position. The reason the incorrect analogy is most likely is that the “Board of Directors,” otherwise known as the City Council, hires the person in that position. It is their only hire.
However, while stockholders elect members of the Board of a publicly held business, their placement on that ballot is often determined by the CEO themselves. Even though City Managers would love to be the one who selects the people who run for seats on the Council, it doesn’t happen all that often.
With terms of four years and many cities requiring Council Members to leave office after two terms, the effective base of support for a City Manager is constantly being undermined. In the business world, this is referred to as a “hostile takeover.” But what causes that action? A group of disgruntled stockholders believes that a change in direction is necessary and that the CEO must step down to deliver on that. That action can come at any time.
In the government world, elections provide the public with the opportunity to express their approval or disapproval of their city’s management, often driven by perception rather than reality. Usually, those elections indicate a desire for change. As with a business’s Board of Directors, the incumbents have entrenched interests and oppose that change. In both cases, however, the true controlling interests, whether stockholders or voters, the actual owners have spoken.
The track record of these takeovers is spotty. However, they occur because there is a perceived need for change. In business, this can bring dramatic change to the products the company delivers. In government, for the most part, the services offered remain unchanged. It is how that spending pie might be divided differently that is often at issue.
In short, Suja Lowenthal’s time ran out. An election altered the fundamental Council arithmetic that keeps someone in office. She could no longer count to three.
She will be replaced by someone else who, in addition to trying to meet the demands of an ever-changing Council and electorate, should always keep their resume up to date.
Mr. Pinzler makes an excellent point. When was the last time you heard someone say, “Why can’t businesses run like a government?” It is also a great assumption that all businesses run better than the government. The number of government entities that have filed for bankruptcy pales in comparison to businesses.
Government is little more than the MASTER ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM. It dwarfs Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. Federal, state, and local government spends about $11T each year that is effectively confiscated from taxpayers. Little surprise with the power of taxation that few government agencies go BK. Last I checked, States cannot even file for BK in federal courts, so only cities and counties and districts – all with some taxation power – are a risk.
Nice to see the silent majority win for a change.