The problem in this case is that John Bramante came into his new position and started making major internal decisions. From these decisions came a negative impact on the city’s government plans that were already in place before he came into his position. The causes of this problem were that John Bramante made decisions without consulting with the city council. John started spending unnecessary amounts of money, changed the city’s purchasing process, and changing people’s positions within the city government. With that being said John also changed employee’s positions and there were no interviews conducted for people who were hired to new positions. All of these new decisions were implemented without any type of transitional period in …show more content…
My third recommendation would be for John Bramante to be put on a 90-day probationary period. This recommendation is in hopes that John will be able communicate better with the council and make better decisions overall. This will also show the pubic that the city government is doing something about the hasty decisions that are being made by the city manger. However the disadvantages to this is that this simply may not work or it may only work up until the probationary period is over and the cycle will happen all over again. After considering all the recommendations, it was determined that the best course of action would be to have all further decisions that are made by John Bramante to be approved my the majority of the city council members. This is the best choice because this assures that the city manger and the city council consult with each other when major decisions must be made. When it comes to how to implement this recommendation, it must be broken into three phases. The first being the “Defining” phase this will consist of the council members determining the rules and procedures to make this work. To do this the council must define what is considered a “major decision” and what is not. Then next will then be to determine what is meant by “majority vote”. The council must then come to an agreement on what will happen if majority of the council members do not approve of the decision purposed by city manger. Then finally the
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
The climate can be changed by the transition of a new mayor and mayoral staff that can be shifted into and out of office every four years and therefore this negotiated contract may not be a long-term solution.
elected separately from the council, and is often a full-time and paid position with a significant administrative and budgetary authority. This form of government, the elected City Council sets policies for the operation of the City. The City Council enacts Ordinances, the laws of the City, adopts Resolutions authorizing actions on behalf of the City, reviews plan for development, and establishes the policies by which the City is governed. The City Council consists of seven members a Mayor and two Councilmember 's elected citywide and four additional Councilmember 's elected by individual districts. The administrative responsibility of the City rests with the City Manager, who is appointed by the City Council upon recommendation of the Mayor. Each Councilmember is
Now the query that needs answering is what appropriate implementation that Anderson must play to secure the approval of an income tax package. What 's more, the mayor
Most of the people here were against the project but the mayor completely ignored our suggestions and he even ignored the minister of the Environments suggestion, who suggested doing a study before doing any planning at all". (Obomsawin, 1993) The mayor was ignoring not only the Mohawk people from whom these decisions were directly affecting but the general consensus which was not necessarily in support of the expansion.
Many concerns and objections have been filed in opposition to the Department of Health (which includes Social Services, Fire and Emergency Management, and Human Services) administrator by departments, citizens, and so on. The City Manager has contracted me regarding: unethical practices, unprofessional leadership, poor fire and emergency response time, unethical practices, insufficient customer and patient care, and much more concerning various governmental departments and external stakeholders. In regards to the latest questions of the City Manager a thorough search into the accusations will be put into play. Supplementary to the issues already being presented, the school board have made concerns to the capability to conduct daily transactions.The school board has a collaborative association with an assortment of government departments and they have levied department directors with non fulfillment to work together on a number of efforts that will be revealed later within this report. This report will provide an underlying support for the City Manager to discourse and perform leadership techniques that outline the actions that should be carried out in order to prevail over the previously mentioned complaints.
The purpose of this paper is to comprehensively compare and contrast the implementation of two types of mayor-council government systems which are that of the weak-mayor type of the mayor council system and the strong-mayor type of the mayor council system. The premise of the analysis which has been conducted in this paper is based upon assessing the local governments of two cities within the United States – Sioux Falls, South Dakota and Minneapolis, Minnesota which follow the adoption of a strong-mayor system and weak-mayor system respectively.
There are numerous techniques the mayor can use to create effective teamwork among city employees one of which is an atmosphere of accountability and trust as a common goal. The American Management Association (2014) stated, “When people work together in a climate of trust and responsibility toward a common goal, they put aside turf issues and politics and focus on the tasks to be done. This
FCB’s financial success was limited since “the Control Board implemented to resolve the city’s crisis was not designed to address each of these root causes equally” (Kobes 2008, p.259). While it altered D.C.’s standing on the market and improved its standing with Congress, “the fiscal crisis did not spur residents to resolve local democracy failures. Rather, no major reforms in the basic structure of the District government were enacted beyond the public schools” (Kobes 2008, p.256). In 2011, a D.C. Council member stated that “it (FCB) was able to do some things that needed to be done, that, politically, I would not do…” (DeBonis 2011). Additionally, different officials refer to the FCB as the “most humiliating episode in the city’s 36-year home rule” (DeBonis 2011). In terms of the initial hypothesis, while the D.C. FCB reformed the legal structure of its jurisdiction, the fact that it failed to incorporate citizen participation and the evolving social factors serves as an example of an FCB that was not highly efficient. Despite changing the legal framework, several issues such as taxation were left unresolved, which serves to show that the issues not addressed by the Revitalization Act are currently affecting D.C. Thus, while it was effective in stabilizing the economy, failing to address other factors might put D.C. at risk of financial crisis once
5. What reports will CitySoft need to make those one-time decisions and decisions it will have to make on an on-going basis (in Question #2)? Who should prepare those reports, who should have access to these reports, and how frequently should they be prepared?
Even though the decision-making process was scattered, shared decision making is what was happening. On one issue they were all clear, quick and on the same page. On the other issues discussed they were scattered. There was no one leader of the decision; there were multiple leaders for a discussion at different times. Therefore, as an observer, this was extremely difficult to follow along. Bruno council did follow shared decision-making and a strategic planning approach. Even though they used the majority of the steps, the discussion could have been more formally approached. However, you can take into consideration this council represents a small population. The support for this approach consists of reform-minded policy-makers and leaders, which is hard to come by in a smaller community. These individuals that were sitting at the table are knowledgeable individuals. However, they do not enable the experiences broader sectors do. Even though, Bruno council lacks the broader spectrum, they do practice one of the most important benefits of policy making, shared learning.
From as early on as 1914, there has been tension between the mayor and governor. In 1914 then Mayor John P Mitchell a democrat who became mayor on a “fusion” reversed his prior judgment regarding the construction of Mohansic State Hospital following negative press coverage arguing that it would allow the citizens to drink polluted water. Then Republican governor Charles Whitman reprimanded the governor in public stating that the sewer systems were adequate and that the mayor’s statements were far from the truth. Furthermore in 1917 the governor then reversed his position and sided with Mitchell. Public fears at that time were caused by over exaggeration on both the mayors and governor’s behalf’s.
The senior officials of San Jose failed when it came to the disaster that had hit a short time ago. Numerous days leading up to the tragedy, officials had evidence that the water was continuously rising. A better plan should have been implemented in order to minimize the damage as much as possible. Think of it as a company brand; you wouldn't let your business drown when you see evidence of an increasing disaster. The officials of San Jose, their brand is the city of San Jose, and the well being of its residents. Good decision making is essential for management because it shows how the function to solve problems. In the future, they could prevent by making better choices when it comes to available alternatives.
It is advisable to involve as many people as are needed in making a decision. In making collective decisions, specific expertise as well as experience of a person both can be used simultaneously. The decision-maker, having weighed the advice of experts and experienced hands, must then use authority to ensure that the final decision is seen through.