A community proposal for Cle Elum
Cle Elum voters can decide whether the city’s chief executive should continue to be an elected mayor or become a professional city manager accountable to the elected City Council.
A stronger system does not replace individual accountability. It makes accountability clearer, faster, and more effective.
The central question
Today, Cle Elum’s elected mayor is legally the city’s chief executive and administrative officer. The city has also used an appointed administrator under the mayor’s authority. Mayor Matthew Lundh announced that the standalone administrator position will end January 31, 2027, with the Public Works manager expected to assume expanded city-administrator responsibilities in February. The city nevertheless remains under mayor-council government.
Under council-manager government, voters would continue electing the City Council. The council would hire, evaluate, and—when necessary—remove a professional manager responsible for day-to-day administration.
This is a structural choice, not a verdict on Mayor Lundh or any future candidate.
The structural problem
Population alone does not describe the job. Cle Elum sits within the economic and recreational orbit of the Seattle region while serving residents across a wide range of incomes and managing growth, utilities, infrastructure, public safety, major development agreements, litigation, and financial recovery.
The current system asks one eligible local resident to win an election and then serve as chief executive across all of those disciplines. Elections establish democratic legitimacy; they are not professional searches for municipal executive qualifications.
“We continue to have unrealistic expectations from a limited group of candidates.”
The mayor must qualify for local elective office and persuade voters. The community cannot recruit nationally or select from a broad field based primarily on executive, financial, legal, development, and operational experience.
Large contracts, development rights, infrastructure obligations, litigation, tourism, second-home investment, workforce pressures, and affordability concerns create consequences far larger than the city’s resident count suggests.
The City Heights dispute developed through years of decisions, arbitrations, judgments, professional advice, and missed opportunities across more than one administration. It should not be reduced to one mayor or one mistake.
Under mayor-council government, executive accountability is primarily electoral. Under council-manager government, the full council can set expectations, evaluate performance, and replace the manager when necessary.
Why consider it
Choose an executive through a public professional search focused on municipal operations, finance, personnel, and implementation.
Residents still elect the council. The council sets policy, adopts budgets, approves contracts, and holds the manager accountable.
A professional manager can provide administrative continuity through election cycles, financial recovery, major projects, and staff transitions.
How accountability would run
The chain changes, but public control does not disappear. Voters choose the council; the council directs and evaluates the manager; the manager administers the city.
The tradeoff
That is the most important democratic tradeoff. Accountability would operate through the elected council rather than through a separate citywide executive election.
A manager would also cost money. Before any vote, the community deserves a real fiscal comparison that includes current mayoral compensation, the cost and capacity of administrator responsibilities being consolidated into Public Works, outside professional services, recruitment, transition, benefits, and proposed manager compensation.
What it would not do
Changing the form of government would not erase debt, alter court orders, create a new tax, cancel existing legal obligations, or guarantee better performance.
It would change who holds executive authority, how that person is selected, and how the person is held accountable.
See the proposal’s limitsA legal path already exists
The City Council may place the question before voters by resolution. Registered voters may also file a qualifying petition with the Kittitas County Auditor.
The county’s 2025 participation report lists 420 participating Cle Elum voters. Ten percent is 42, but 42 remains a preliminary minimum until the Auditor confirms the statutory denominator and petition requirements in writing. Only valid signatures count.
“The question is not who should be the next mayor. The question is whether Cle Elum should keep asking an elected mayor to be its chief executive.”
Community proposal prepared by Karl Ohlemann for public review. Source review date: November 7, 2026.
*November 2, 2027 is the next regular election date for the current separately elected mayoral office. If voters approve council-manager government with an earlier effective date, that separate office would no longer be elected.