guest commentary by David Potts
Editor’s note: David Potts is a certified public accountant with more than 33 years experience. Although every effort is made to provide you accurate and timely tax information, it is general in nature and not specific to your facts and circumstances. Consult a qualified tax professional to discuss your particular case. Feel free to e-mail topic suggestions or questions to davidpotts@potts-cpa.com
Opinions, commentary and other essays posted in this space are wholly the view of the author(s). They may not represent the opinion of the owners of The City Wire.
Last week, I had appointments with two clients. With each client I started our meeting by asking the question, “How was your year?” Both answered that it was one of the worst years ever. To vouch for these clients, both businesses have a history of strong profitability and strong management. It wasn’t their business acumen that was lacking. What they had in common was a market area concentrated in and around Fort Smith.
These type of conversations, clients talking about how business isn’t good, plus other less than positive trends Fort Smith has acquired in the recent past, has bothered me for years. Beginning a couple of years ago I began actively observing Fort Smith’s government at work. Much of what I see is very good. Some of what I see isn’t. But as a lifelong resident of Fort Smith, today seems less prosperous than the past.
I have written here in the past that I don’t’ believe that it is the city government’s responsibility to provide jobs and to attract businesses to Fort Smith. But a city government that tends to be obstructionist to certain business investments that help bring prosperity to Fort Smith is unreasonable and short sighted.
Fort Smith’s current form of government is the administrator form of government. It isn’t a horrific form of government, but several nuances make me believe the mayor/council form may be best for our city. The administrator form of government is patterned after how many successful corporations are governed. Take Walmart as an example. The stockholders elect a board of directors who hires a chief executive officer (CEO) to run the company. The CEO is held accountable by the board of directors to achieve results that give the stockholders an acceptable return on their investment.
Similarly, as an administrator form of government, Fort Smith residents hire a board of directors which in turn hires a city administrator, the city’s CEO. The administrator is responsible for running operations of the city and is accountable to the city board.
But here is a major difference I see between a company like Wal-mart and a government like Fort Smith: I am not aware that Fort Smith has a shared vision, and rumors of personal agendas abound.
As it works today, the city of Fort Smith has a board of directors that as far as I can tell have never had a vision, at least a cogent vision for Fort Smith. A comprehensive plan, yes; a vision, no. From what I see, they don’t have much ability to do anything important. If they are working to make a living in addition to attending board meetings and study sessions and listening to their constituents when would they have time. I don’t believe the administrator form of government was designed to think in terms of a city’s vision. I don’t believe our directors see this as their purpose or their responsibility. It’s probably not in their job description.
The city administrator is just that, an administrator.
So where does leadership come from? Leadership that wants to make Fort Smith a better place to live? It comes from people who love this city and are vested in how well it does. But as with any organization, it works best when one person is in charge.
The mayor/council form of government allows an elected mayor to be in charge of the city – not unaccountable but in charge. If the one elected can’t perform adequately, you vote him/her out and put another person in place. But at least there is a chance a mayor can get things done for the people of Fort Smith. Management by committee has never worked as well in any organization. For this reason, I believe Fort Smith would be better off with a mayor/council form of government. But here’s the hitch.
There is an effort by a group of “citizens” circulating petitions to get signatures to allow Fort Smith to vote for a change to the mayor\council form. But just as I “feel” that Fort Smith’s future prosperity is at risk, I “feel” that this effort to change the form of our city government is based on personal agendas, not an ingrained love for Fort Smith.
Now before you start to call me Mayor Giuliani Potts, keep in mind that several citizens leading the charge are not residents of Fort Smith. This bothers me the same way it bothered me when CNN news anchor Piers Morgan would criticize U.S. Government policy on television.
I also have to ask what is this group’s vision. They have a slogan: “Take Back the Fort.” But I could not find where they have any ideas or any agenda for a future Fort Smith besides “taking back the Fort.”
Fort Smith does need a change of government and the only other choice we have in Arkansas is the mayor/council form. The hope would be that this change would allow men and women who have vision and leadership ability to excite our residents to work toward a town that attracted new people and retain our own children we raised and educated. I just worry a misguided, unfunded effort motivated by personal agendas without a vision wouldn’t be what we really asked for and would only delay a more organized and focused effort.