Who’s running Wichita during this coronavirus crisis? Not elected officials
When the City of Wichita announced the furlough of 300 employees, the community should have erupted in protest.
The official announcement said the furloughs were necessary because of the coronavirus crisis, an explanation that makes absolutely no sense. In reality, it was a budget decision, plain and simple. Worse yet, it was a budget decision that hammered the lowest 300 members of the city “family,” and left untouched the top-paid echelon.
Cutting off the salaries of 300 employees will do nothing to enhance the community’s public safety. It is nothing more than a knee-jerk bureaucratic response to a very human crisis. Those with the least will suffer the most, while those with the most (the top 20 city employees claim nearly $3 million in annual salary) go untouched.
That thoughtless and mindless action was the brainchild of City Manager Robert Layton, and was simply echoed by a city council that appears unwilling to take a leadership role in this unprecedented challenge to our community’s safety. Council members are actually making public statements in support of Layton’s action, apparently content to stay clear of their leadership responsibilities in time of crisis.
And therein lies a more far-reaching question about our local governance model. Who is in charge? Who bears the responsibility for our community strategy?
The answer? Two unelected officials.
On the county level, Garold Minns is the absolute authority. As county health officer, he can impose whatever community response he thinks is necessary to protect the community. There is some degree of logic to that assignment, as the threats to community health can come in unpredictable forms requiring immediate action. State law vests that authority with the public health officer, although the statute says these critical decisions can be made by either the county health board or the county health officer. It doesn’t specify when one might override the other, and that ambiguity leaves Minns with the ultimate authority.
On the city level, it’s a little less clear. Any budgetary action to respond to the crisis is solely in the hands of the city manager. As chief administrative officer, Robert Layton can shift resources, reduce workforce and otherwise craft whatever response he deems appropriate.
The mayor and city council are largely advisory at this stage. Their one great opportunity to impose their will comes on approval of the annual budget, a decision that won’t present itself again until next August.
Meanwhile, Layton will take whatever actions he thinks necessary, actions that will affect city employees and the citizens they serve. His first move to furlough 300 employees while leaving untouched the top-salaried echelon of city government.
Certainly, the mayor and council can weigh in, both collectively and individually, but the final decision about the assignment of city resources is clearly in Layton’s lap. His only risk would be alienating a majority of the council to the extent they fire him in disagreement over his actions.
That response is highly unlikely, as most council members appear quite willing to limit their involvement to an advisory role at this stage of the crisis.
Contrast our local situation to the state level, where Gov. Laura Kelly is clearly at the helm, acting on behalf of the people who voted her into office.
When the dust settles and the pandemic is under control, it would be worth a second look at who leads our community under these demanding circumstances.
No matter what the crisis, the public’s voice must be heard, and the public’s will should be expressed by its elected leaders. That element is missing now, and there is no way to change it on the fly.
This story was originally published April 1, 2020 at 10:36 AM.