City of Bellingham Charter Amendments Related to Selection and Professional Qualifications of the Finance Director.

The Bellingham City Council has proposed charter amendments concerning selection of the finnace director. If approved, section 8.05 will require the finance director to be appointed or removed by the mayor with council approval. The finance director would be appointed based on professional qualifications with special reference to knowledge and experience in municipal finance. Approval of this measure deletes finance director as an elected office in section 2.01 and deletes reference to the finance director’s term of office in section 2.02. This change would be effective January 1, 2008.

In November, voters will have the opportunity to amend the Bellingham City Charter to provide for an appointed finance director, based on professional qualifications. As with the city attorney and hearing examiner, the finance director would be appointed by the mayor and approved by the City Council. I encourage you to vote in favor of this important change.

Since 2000, I have served as your city finance director — the only elected finance director in the state of Washington. All other cities appoint their finance directors based on qualifications, including requirements for education and experience. Bellingham should do the same.

The current charter was drafted by citizens and approved by voters in 1972 with periodic amendments since then. It spells out the organization of Bellingham city government, including the roles and responsibilities of elected officials: Bellingham’s mayor, City Council and finance director. When the charter was drafted in 1972, the positions of treasurer and comptroller were combined into the single elected position of finance director. However, the charter requires no professional experience or qualifications for this important position.

Since 1972, Bellingham has grown and the city’s finances and financial reporting requirements have become more complex. With an annual budget over $200 million, the city provides critical and desired services to over 70,000 citizens. The city must follow a wide variety of legal rules for spending and technical requirements for financial reporting. Bond rating agencies consider the city’s financial management and policies in assigning the city’s bond rating. A strong bond rating means lower interest rates on the city’s debt. And the city’s elected mayor and council members need clear, concise and unbiased financial information to make informed decisions.

These responsibilities require a high degree of technical training and administrative experience. The city’s financial management should be in the hands of an experienced, impartial professional who can provide sound financial information to elected decision makers. Having an elected finance director leaves the city’s financial management and direction open to anyone who can be successful in the political arena, regardless of ability to perform the job. Would you trust your personal investments to someone without financial qualifications? Would you hire someone without business and administrative experience to manage your company’s finances? It is common sense that the finance director for the city of Bellingham should have the qualifications and experience needed to perform the duties of the position.

It has been both challenging and rewarding to serve as the city’s finance director. I am pleased to have accomplished many of my goals for the office including: clean audit reports, nationally recognized financial reports, improved city utility billings, stronger voted bond rating and more transparency to the city’s budget and finances. This recommendation to change the city charter is one more thing I can do as your finance director to ensure the city’s financial health

The city’s charter needs to be amended to make certain the position of finance director is filled with a qualified professional in the future. Bellingham’s citizens and taxpayers deserve no less.

Statement prepared by:
Therese Holm, Bellingham Finance Director.

This November, the city is asking voters whether Bellingham’s finance director should be appointed by the mayor instead of elected, as required in the Bellingham City Charter.

Our charter was adopted in 1972, following a process in state law designed to assure that charters are an instrument of the people — a contract through which government is authorized to operate in the public’s best interests, according to the people’s direction. Citizens were nominated and duly elected to act as “freeholders” for the purpose of revising the charter.

Voters then approved combining the former offices of city treasurer and comptroller into the elective office of finance director. There have since been three finance directors, during which time Bellingham has had four mayors. We’ve had no major fiscal crises. The office, as freeholders envisioned, has functioned as a check and balance. The position’s responsibility to the electorate means that the fiscal impacts of bureaucratic initiatives stand a chance of being independently assessed.

Now the city wants the mayor to choose the finance director, saying the job has grown more critically complex and deserving of better credentials and certification. However, the city omitted mention of any qualifications in their first resolution on the subject and subsequently approved a second resolution that requires “professional qualifications” but fails to specify any professional standard.

That doesn’t mean it’s better to elect finance officers. Most cities hire. Election has worked in Bellingham but that’s no guarantee. However, appointed finance officers aren’t immune to error either. Some have even slipped away with the funds. Circumstances always allow for failure or abuse. Hiring or appointing is not necessarily a bad idea. The reason to oppose the ballot measure is because the city’s method of getting there treats the charter, and the people, badly.

The city started scheming various charter amendments in 2004 to address things like civil service requirements, how contracts are let, how citizens may qualify issues for the ballot and who knows what else. They made a public gesture of approving a citizen review committee but it was never formed. A “Charter Review Committee” was convened, but it was composed solely of department heads and top administrators. Citizens were cut out of the negotiations to modify their contract with government. Since then, the city has already changed how citizens can challenge or initiate legislation — without so much as a public hearing.

A piecemeal approach to amending the charter favors the administration and disadvantages citizens. Hiring qualified finance officers makes sense. But losing a valuable check and balance does not. Maybe we should also hire professionally qualified city managers for better balance — to reduce the risk of abuse from appointments under our current “strong mayor” form of government. Maybe we could avoid some risks by simply having the Human Resources Department do the hiring instead of the mayor. Piecemeal amendments foreclose comprehensive solutions and can promote change leading to unseen goals.

This November, just say “no” to continued piecemeal amendment of the charter. Hold out for a comprehensive review conducted by citizens, not the administration. We just watched the county do their charter review correctly. Invite the administration to detail their problems and suggest their changes. But please let citizens come up with the solutions. Government is not meant to be of, by and for the administration.

Statement perpared by:
Tip Johnson, a business consultant and former two-term City Council member from the 6th Ward.