Directly elected mayors

Road-Hog

Apparently the Waterford electorate along with Dublin and Galway will be given the opportunity to vote on this matter during next years local elections. Does anyone have a particular view. What actual difference will it make....? At the minute as far as I know the ‘mayor’ is selected on a rotation basis and changes on a yearly basis. Will a directly elected mayor be left there for full term of the local elections...? Will he/she have any more powers other than those the current mayor has....?

engiweirdo

Isnt mayor a ceremonial role with the actual running of council affairs done by the city manager? I mean no offense to any of them but would you rather any of the current councillors in that position due to improved powers rather than the current city manager who would appear to have attained the position on merit? Let them take their turns with the chains tbh.

beazee

Currently, Mayor has no other role than a representative one - attend ceremonies, pose to photos, shake hands.

Where is the need for changing this originating from?

Riskymove

see here for Dublin

https://consultation.dublincity.ie/city-managers/directly_elected_mayor/

I imagine it will be similar process for Waterford


The exact role and powers proposed for the new Mayor is not known yet but will be known before the vote

bullpost

beazee wrote: »

Currently, Mayor has no other role than a representative one - attend ceremonies, pose to photos, shake hands.

Where is the need for changing this originating from?

Cuddly Leo


“Having somebody there for five years would make a big difference, particularly if they get some of the executive powers that officials have,” Mr Varadkar said.

However, the Taoiseach said if those living in Cork, Limerick, Galway, and other areas do vote to introduce directly-elected mayors, the system would require legislation and so it would take some time before coming into force."

Road-Hog

beazee wrote: »

Currently, Mayor has no other role than a representative one - attend ceremonies, pose to photos, shake hands.

Where is the need for changing this originating from?

Think it would be best to leave the mayors powers as they are.,...as in they have none

beazee

bullpost wrote: »

“Having somebody there for five years would make a big difference.."

It would make FA of a difference. 99% of Council spending is already pre-planned. Councillors get to vote on a mere 1% of a budget.

There's a City Manager (now Chief Executive) in his role since 2007 and that what makes a difference! A merit-based role, not a political one.

Franz Von Peppercorn

beazee wrote: »

It would make FA of a difference. 99% of Council spending is already pre-planned. Councillors get to vote on a mere 1% of a budget.

There's a City Manager (now Chief Executive) in his role since 2007 and that what makes a difference! A merit-based role, not a political one.

Presumably directly elected mayors would change that. They should have tax raising powers too.

beazee

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Presumably directly elected mayors would change that. They should have tax raising powers too.

And this is why I do not look favourably at the whole idea.

Franz Von Peppercorn

beazee wrote: »

And this is why I do not look favourably at the whole idea.

All great cities have directly elected mayors and most have tax raising powers.

hardybuck

Ireland has one of the most centralised administrations in Europe. One of the reasons for that is our size. When you compare the likes of Germany, which would have a lot of regional automony, they arguably need it due to the scale of their nation and the differences which exist between the different regions.

Belgium would be a good example of a relatively small country with a lot of local automony, and an absolutely head melting amount of bureaucracy. They have buses that have to change languages on board as they move between regions.

I think it's a good opportunity to open up the topic for debate and further analysis before people eventually have their say on the matter.

Personally, I think we'd be better off staying as we are.

sparkling sea

beazee wrote: »

It would make FA of a difference. 99% of Council spending is already pre-planned. Councillors get to vote on a mere 1% of a budget.

There's a City Manager (now Chief Executive) in his role since 2007 and that what makes a difference! A merit-based role, not a political one.

It's the City Manager we would need to elect and I wouldn't be voting for him

Road-Hog

sparkling sea wrote: »

It's the City Manager we would need to elect and I wouldn't be voting for him[/quote

Is he the worst manager ever....up there I suppose with the worst of them

bullpost

Wouldnt really be rushing into this experiment .

I suspect there will be issues with local budgets not being sufficient and then being left high and dry.

What we need now is investment from central government to help Waterford expand and thrive.

Deiseen

Road-Hog wrote: »

sparkling sea wrote: »

It's the City Manager we would need to elect and I wouldn't be voting for him[/quote

Is he the worst manager ever....up there I suppose with the worst of them

Michael Walsh? I hope you are joking??