A structure question, not a personality contest.

What is being proposed

This initiative proposes a public, fact-based process leading to a citywide vote on Cle Elum’s form of government. Under the proposed council-manager plan, residents would continue electing the City Council. The council would appoint a professional city manager to serve as chief executive and oversee day-to-day administration.

The title of mayor would remain, but the mayor would be a councilmember serving as council chair and ceremonial head rather than the city’s regular chief administrator.

What is wrong with the current system

Cle Elum’s mayor-council structure asks voters to choose one eligible local resident who will serve not only as the city’s political and community leader, but also as its chief executive and administrative officer. Those are different jobs requiring different strengths.

Cle Elum may have a small resident population, but the city’s responsibilities are not simple or low stakes. It is connected to Seattle-region investment and recreation, serves residents with widely different economic circumstances, and must manage utilities, infrastructure, public safety, large development agreements, litigation, growth, and financial recovery. A wrong decision can create consequences the community cannot readily absorb.

An election measures public support. It does not provide the city with a broad professional search, verified executive qualifications, performance-based hiring terms, or the ability to replace the chief executive without waiting for an election or pursuing extraordinary legal remedies.

Why the vulnerability keeps returning

The problem is not that every mayor lacks integrity, intelligence, or commitment. The problem is that the structure depends too heavily on the particular person who happens to run, qualify, and win.

• Candidate-pool constraint: the city chooses from eligible residents willing to run for office, not from a professionally recruited executive market.
• Qualification mismatch: community leadership and campaigning do not necessarily demonstrate experience with municipal finance, complex contracts, litigation strategy, development, personnel, or operational execution.
• Fragmented accountability: advisers and administrators may provide expertise, but the elected mayor remains chief executive and is primarily accountable through the election cycle.
• Compounding risk: when early warnings, arbitration rulings, legal demands, or financial realities are not addressed, later leaders can inherit a narrower and more expensive set of choices.

What the bankruptcy record shows

The City Heights matter was not one isolated decision and should not be reduced to one person. The public record spans multiple administrations, professional advisers, arbitration orders, a major damages award, court judgments, collection pressure, and ultimately Chapter 9. At several points, earlier realities and adverse decisions narrowed the city’s options, while the financial exposure continued to grow.

That record does not prove that mayor-council government alone caused the bankruptcy. It does show how expensive sustained failures to identify, contain, and correct risk can become when the city is handling high-dollar, legally complex matters. It is reasonable for voters to ask whether the current system gives Cle Elum the best odds of recognizing risk early, obtaining and testing sound professional advice, correcting course, and maintaining accountability across election cycles.

An administrator under the mayor is not council-manager government

Cle Elum has used an appointed city administrator working under the elected mayor’s direction and authority. Mayor Matthew Lundh announced that the standalone City Administrator position will end January 31, 2027 and that the Public Works manager is expected to assume expanded city-administrator responsibilities in February.

That consolidation may change staffing, but it does not change the city’s legal form of government. The elected mayor remains chief executive. A council-manager system would instead place statutory executive authority in a professional manager appointed, evaluated, and removable by the full elected council.

The available options

1. Keep the current mayor-council system. Voters continue electing the chief executive and accept that executive capacity will vary with the candidates who live in the city and choose to run.
2. Strengthen appointed administration under the mayor. The city can delegate more work, hire advisers, or expand staff roles. This may add expertise, but the mayor remains chief executive and the council does not become the administrator’s statutory employer.
3. Adopt council-manager government. Voters continue electing the council, while the council recruits a professional manager based on the city’s actual needs, sets public expectations, evaluates performance, and can replace the manager when necessary.

This initiative recommends that voters receive the information needed to consider the third option.

The case for professional management

• Qualifications: recruit based on executive, financial, legal, development, personnel, operational, and municipal experience.
• Continuity: maintain administrative leadership through election cycles, financial recovery, major projects, and council turnover.
• Accountability: establish public goals, regular evaluations, and council authority to replace the manager.
• Role clarity: separate political and policy leadership from day-to-day administration.
• Recruiting reach: consider qualified candidates beyond the pool of residents willing and able to run a citywide campaign.

The democratic tradeoff

Residents would no longer directly elect the city’s chief executive. Instead, voters would elect councilmembers, and the council would hire, direct, evaluate, and—if necessary—remove the manager.

That can create more continuous management, but it also makes council elections and council oversight even more important. Voters should approve the change only if they believe that accountability through the full council is preferable to a separately elected executive.

A real fiscal comparison is required

No one should promise savings without a documented comparison. Before the ballot, the city should publish a current-state and proposed-state analysis including:

• mayoral salary, benefits, and related costs;
• the compensation, capacity, and delegated responsibilities associated with city-administrator duties being consolidated into Public Works;
• outside executive, financial, legal, or management services;
• manager recruitment and transition costs;
• proposed manager compensation and benefits;
• any position changes, severance exposure, and overlapping transition costs.

The analysis should identify one-time and recurring costs separately and explain which current functions would continue, change, or end.

What this change would not do

Changing government would not:

• erase city debt or other financial obligations;
• alter a court order, settlement, contract, or permit condition;
• create or approve a tax;
• automatically change development policy;
• guarantee competent management or better decisions;
• replace the need for engaged voters and effective council oversight.

The path forward

1. Build the public record. Explain the two systems, document the city’s current staffing and costs, verify the legal process, and publish the tradeoffs.
2. Define the proposed transition. Establish a realistic effective date, interim leadership plan, recruitment process, manager profile, compensation range, performance measures, and public-reporting expectations.
3. Place the question before voters. The City Council may initiate an election by resolution, or registered voters may use the statutory petition process.
4. Let Cle Elum decide. The change occurs only if a majority of voters approve it.
5. Recruit for the real job. If approved, the council should conduct an open professional search focused on the financial, legal, development, operational, and community challenges Cle Elum actually faces.

What a responsible proposal should include

• A clearly stated effective date.
• An independent fiscal comparison.
• A public manager-recruitment and evaluation framework.
• A transition plan for the administrator responsibilities being consolidated into Public Works and other staff reporting lines.
• Written confirmation of the petition and election requirements.
• Confirm and meet applicable PDC registration, reporting, and sponsor-identification duties, including any obligations arising from existing campaign expenses.

See how the structure changes Review the path to a vote