Patton Adams, commission chair and former Columbia mayor, and Howard Duvall, executive director of Municipal Association of SC

Columbia City Council authorized the Commission on Columbia City Reform and Restructuring last February. The commission was given the mission to study the city’s form of government and to determine its effectiveness, responsiveness, and accountability. The first meeting of the commission was April 5, and Tuesday afternoon was the 13th called meeting.

The commission was directed to either reaffirm the current form of government or make a recommendation for an alternative. For the commission to actually render a decision, it must be the result of a vote, and the decision needs the support of three–fourths of the commission or 13 votes out of the 17 members.

In alphabetical order, the commission members are:

Patton Adams (chair),

Bob Amundson,

Virginia Bedford,

Bill Boyd,

Mignon Clyburn,

Crawford Clarkson,

Kirkman Finlay,

Kester Freeman,

Belinda Gergel,

Bobby Gist,

Jack Goettee,

Myrtle Gordon,

Henry Hopkins,

Dalhi Myers,

Lonnie Randolph,

Diane Sumpter, and

Darren Thomas.

The commission’s staff support comes from the Municipal Association of SC, mostly executive director Howard Duvall and Natalie Viers, staff associate for affiliate services.

In its draft report, the commission disclosed four major findings.

Finding I: The City of Columbia is not currently functioning under the council–manager form of government as outlined by state statute.

Former city attorney Roy Bates testified, “The main problem in Columbia is that the council insists on dealing with administrative matters that the manager is given exclusive statutory authority to deal with. The council does not select managers who are allowed to fully exercise the powers of a chief executive. The assertion that the council–manager form does not allow citizens to know who is responsible for actions is incorrect. The lines of authority and responsibility are clearly set forth in state statutes. It is the blurring of those lines by council and compliant managers chosen by council that produces the confusion.”

Finding II: Public perception in the City of Columbia is that there is a lack of vision for the city.

“If the City of Columbia has a vision, it was not clearly communicated to the commission,” according to the commission’s draft report. City Manager Charles Austin testified before the commission last May, and he said he set his own goals, but he saw little in clearly defined city–wide goals set by council.

Finding III: The proper functioning of the council–manager form of government requires professionally trained managers with proven experience in managing a city the size of Columbia.

As the commission’s draft report put it: “A city manager for a city the size of Columbia should have demonstrated management experience in cities comparable in size and complexity to the City of Columbia. In addition, the educational training should be in fields associated with city management. Whereas it may be good to promote from within, the city must be certain internal candidates have had the wide experience necessary to produce a capable city manager.

“The City of Columbia’s tendency to promote from within has led to weak managers who do not have the experience required to stand firm in the face of council meddling in administration of policy rather than the setting of policy. It seems to be an intentional policy of the council to hire a manager lacking in city–wide managerial experience.”

One of the commission’s resources, a report on Columbia’s government from 2001 titled “Evaluation of Employee Policies and Employee Morale,” stated, “Without question, there is a severe shortage of good management practices at all levels and a lack of supervisor training of the most elementary sort.”

Finding IV: The City of Columbia should pursue functional consolidation opportunities with Richland County.

Political consolidation is legally allowed but politically unfeasible. Functional consolidation, however, is realistic and should render a more efficient delivery of government services. The proposed combination of city and county planning and permitting offices, for instance, is close to reality. County and city councils have been working on that one for years, but they can’t seem to agree on the location for the office complex, regardless how efficient and convenient and cost effective the combination may be.

The commission meets again in mid–January. They should be just about through with their report and its findings and recommendations. Possibly they could vote on the final recommendation for Columbia’s form of government, but it’s more likely the government form decision is another month away, maybe February or even March.

The Municipal

Association of SC

contributed to this article.