Council members have largely praised Kalispell City Manager Jane Howington’s short tenure here. When she arrived in August of 2009, the city was dangerously close to broke. She quickly made cuts, which is why there is another camp that is eager to see Howington pack up her desk and head to Rhode Island.
City departments and their respective staffs bore the brunt of cost-cutting measures instituted by Howington and many of them are happy her reign is over, although fewer would say so publicly. And the Beacon, in its reporting on Howington’s exit, has been accused of viewing her time in Kalispell through rose-colored glasses.
True, Howington’s legacy is mostly associated with growing budget reserves from about $226,000 to about $865,000. And what’s often overlooked is the human cost to get to that end.
The fire department, especially, felt burned by the city manager when, after an arbitrator ruled in its favor, Howington said firefighters would be laid off and the ambulance service privatized to pay for the new contract.
The firefighters’ union questioned how the city was calculating the monetary impacts of the arbitrator’s decision but, in the end, made significant concessions to avoid layoffs.
Howington, like most city managers, wasn’t hired to make friends. She was, more or less, brought to town to clean up a financial mess. And she, more or less, succeeded. While critics can point to her tactics, it is more difficult to argue with the results.
The council, our elected officials, asked her to increase budget reserves, and she did. In 2010, two of the most conservative members of the council, Bob Hafferman and Tim Kluesner, who had never voted in favor of the annual budget, approved it. Hafferman did vote against this year’s budget.
Whoever is hired to replace Howington will have far more stable finances to work with than when she arrived. Still, there are plenty of people offering ideas on how to find a better replacement.
First, they say, the next city manager should be from Montana, because no one understands Montana like Montanans. I disagree. If someone in the state is qualified, then hire him or her. But making “local” a prerequisite only dilutes the talent pool.
Secondly, they contest, don’t pay a city manager too much. Their master’s and doctorate degrees aren’t worth it. This, I think, is the worst of all arguments. In the long run, a highly paid and high-performing executive is worth far more than a cheap one who achieves poor results.
Finally, there are those who argue that the city manager should be ditched altogether and replaced with a strong mayor system. I have previously made similar arguments, but, to be clear, this wouldn’t save the city money. A city administrator would need to be hired to help the mayor manage finances – essentially hiring two people to do one job.
One of the main advantages, and criticisms, of a city manager system is the person who holds the position is allowed to make unpopular decisions without having to face voters every few years. In Howington’s case, she was in town for such a short period of time she would not have faced an election anyway.
Howington’s tenure was not beyond reproach. She could come across as unsympathetic when dealing with city employees and I still think her proposal to implement a retail transaction fee to pay for roads is a bad one.
But she performed her main job well. She was asked by a majority conservative council to provide a conservative budget. And she did.