McKelvey's opposition to change predictable

Is it elitist to suggest that Youngstown may be better off with a city manager as the chief executive rather than a mayor? Mayor George M. McKelvey thinks so.
Is it an insult to the voters to opine that the current system of government may not be the most efficient in this day and age? McKelvey thinks so.
And is it an invitation to political shenanigans to have members of city council, who are elected by the people, select the city manager? The current mayor seems to think so.
Elitist? Insulting? Political games?
It's obvious that McKelvey has spent too much time in the public sector. When his term in office is up in 2005, he might do well to find a job in the private sector. If he does, the first thing he'll learn is that change, especially during time of great economic upheaval, is inevitable.
Companies that need to downsize or must deal with financial problems hire experts. It's a recognition that an outsider's view is essential in identifying operational weaknesses and, yes, waste.
Government -- especially in a city like Youngstown that is losing population, has a large percent of its residents who do not pay income tax, and is in dire need of a systemic makeover -- cannot remain static.
Revealing
McKelvey's reaction to the suggestion that a city manager might be what Youngstown needs is revealing. As a former schoolteacher, assistant principal, city councilman, county treasurer and now mayor, his blinders are firmly in place. And like most politicians averse to change, he uses the voters as cover.
It doesn't matter to such advocates of the status quo that in Youngstown, a small percentage of residents eligible to vote even go to the polls. Thus, decision-making with regard to city government is in the hands of a few.
As was asked in this space Jan. 26 (the column was headlined "It's time to look at Y'town differently"), "Does Youngstown still require a strong mayor to guide it, or has the time come for a city manager and ceremonial mayoralty?"
There was a related question that Mc-Kelvey simply ignored when he recently slapped down the city manager idea. He contended that such a position would be ripe for political games because it puts management in the hands of a council majority that doesn't necessarily represent the whole city. Votes on council to hire and fire a city manager can be based on power and politics, not who is best for the job, McKelvey argued.
But here's the related question posed in the Jan. 26 column: "Does the legislative branch need seven members of council elected from the seven wards and a president of council elected at large, or can four at-large members elected in a nonpartisan election do the work?"
Why four? Because with a population of 80,000 or so, Youngstown does not need seven ward council members and an at-large council president.
With lawmakers elected from throughout the city, the interest of all the voters would be protected.
Additionally, there would be educational and job experience requirements for the city manager that would ensure applications from only the most qualified, as opposed to the most political -- as is now the case.
McKelvey says he resents the implication that the public isn't smart enough to make the choice for mayor. Here's a reality check: It's not the public that's the problem. It's the fact that the voters don't have much to choose from when it comes to candidates. The best and brightest in a community rarely run for office.
That is why the idea of a city manager -- a qualified city manager -- sounds like such an attractive proposition for Youngstown. Cities on the decline can't afford the status quo.
Not groundbreaking
But nothing is going to happen so long as McKelvey is in the mayor's office. The Charter Review Commission that he created will not break new ground. He impaneled it because members of the League of Women Voters and a faith-based, grass-roots organization called ACTION publicly asked him to do so.
These groups wanted the commission to look at city government in the context of Youngstown present and future. That may have occurred, but no major proposals are forthcoming.
So what's to be done? Advocates for change should make the structure of city government a major issue in the next election for mayor -- when McKelvey won't be on the ballot. Without the power of his office behind him, McKelvey's opinions will not carry any more or any less weight than individuals who believe the current system is archiac.