The “meet the candidates” series in the Courier-Post is appreciated. Gaining some familiarity of potential members of the city council is very important.

While following these interviews an issue comes to light that may be noteworthy.


The “meet the candidates” series in the Courier-Post is appreciated. Gaining some familiarity of potential members of the city council is very important.
While following these interviews an issue comes to light that may be noteworthy.
The candidates are asked, “Do you agree with the statement: The role of a city council representative should be as an administrator rather then a direct supervisor? Why or Why not?”
While it is not a council representative’s role to supervise, it is neither a role to administrate anything.
We have an administrator - the City Manager. This follows a policy set by the city council and approved by the electorate. The city manager is trained, educated and experienced sufficient to manage the affairs of the city. It is quite likely no one else within the city limits matches these credentials. A simple election does not confer any of these attributes, it takes years of specialized education and training. Our train of command should be thus: City employees report to city employed supervisors who report to the City Manager (period).
The city manager reports to the city council as a group, not to each individual. The council is his boss, reporting to them (as a group) is normal and expected.
The city council is a policy making body. In the case of Hannibal make that ‘should be’ a policy making body. The city council has one employee, the City Manager, who carries out the policies made by the council as a group.
The last thing we need is citizens elected as policy makers to assume administrating, supervising, or acting as individual city managers.

Vince Mankowski
Hannibal