To the editor:

I have searched my soul and I am mostly pure on the subject du jour!

In other words, while I live on Edgecliff Drive and support a change in our city government, my disagreement with the process and final outcome of the Langley Passage issue is not the reason. It also has nothing to do with personalities — past and present.

In a city of 700 eligible voters, it is difficult to find people willing and capable of being the CEO. Witness the last three mayors — all elected without competition.

For a while, I thought that was OK. Someone stepping up to honorable volunteer service in support of his or her community. And while I did not always agree with their actions, I honor them for their service.

I now have serious doubt. Last year’s action, as confirmed at the last council meeting, has changed the flavor by essentially making the mayor into a relatively well-paid executive. It seems to me that there is now no functional difference in Langley between a mayor and a manager. Both are supposed to have the same responsibility and accountability.

But, as long as there is no contest for the position, an individual needs to do no more than go to Coupeville, pay the filing fee and be assured of a job that securely pays more than $70,000 per year for four years. The mayor works without a job description and does not need to meet any requirements for education and experience. As an “elected” official his or her performance is not subject to review, except at the next election. Issues are decided at the mayor’s level, often with little transparency.

In a council-manager system, there is a job description that clearly states the requirements of the position. The manager must execute the policies set by the city council who is responsible to the voters. The manager is not expected to have any personal political bias or ambition.

Since the talent pool is large, the city council has an opportunity to select the best applicant. His or her performance — essentially the efficiency of government — is subject to annual review.

The composition of the council is subject to change every two years, because it serves staggered four year terms. It goes without saying that this system forces the council to take on greater responsibilities and that is as it should be.

ROLF SEITLE

Langley