Cauthen's ouster means KC must reunite, push on

And off we go again, as Kansas City begins the search for a city manager who will pinch pennies, tear apart bureaucratic fiefdoms and make nice with elected officials.

The City Council’s rushed decision to fire Wayne Cauthen last week was clumsily done — but it finally ended the stalemate between the city manager and Mayor Mark Funkhouser.

So where do we go from here? Here’s a true-false test to see.

Funkhouser finally showed the political skills needed to remove Cauthen.

False: The three most important council members in last week’s coup were Jan Marcason, Beth Gottstein and Cindy Circo.

All had (wrongly) supported Cauthen’s contract extension during another rushed council decision back in December 2007 — the first time Funkhouser tried to fire the city manager.

When Marcason, Gottstein and Circo in recent weeks arrived at the decision that Cauthen had to go, that gave Funkhouser (and other longtime council critics Bill Skaggs, Deb Hermann and Russ Johnson) the votes needed to remove Cauthen.

Funkhouser can be bashed for the manner in which Cauthen was fired, but make no mistake: It would not have happened without Marcason, Gottstein and Circo.

The firing deeply divided the City Council.

True, with a huge caveat: The people upset about the action or left out of the loop (or both) were truly unhappy with Marcason, Gottstein and Circo, along with Funkhouser.

However, no one made a spirited attempt to keep Cauthen during last Thursday’s council session. Even defenders such as Terry Riley, John Sharp and Ed Ford had little to say in favor of keeping the city manager.

The council members were more upset about the process and how it played out. They really weren’t that divided over the policy decision being made. So the hard feelings shouldn’t last that long. After all, Sharp (in 1984) and Ford (in 1997) have been through previous battles to get rid of city managers. They know all about how tough and emotional these situations can be.

Troy Schulte will be a good acting city manager.

True: He has in-depth know-ledge of the city’s budget problems, knows about the entrenched bureaucracies and generally gets along well with a council majority.

Yet I’ve already heard from the anti-Schulte crowd that’s criticized him for months for going along with the Fire Department’s takeover of MAST. Others want him to back up his tough talk on budget issues by setting hard-and-fast priorities; I agree, that’s an excellent idea. Meanwhile, developers who pine for the Cauthen days will shoot at Schulte, claiming he needs to woo the business crowd.

Being pro-jobs is easy. But one of Schulte’s strengths is knowing the cost to taxpayers of past development deals. He must not kowtow to the development crowd as Cauthen too often did.

Given his long-troubled reign as mayor, Funkhouser shouldn’t try to nominate a new city manager.

False: The mayor has the right plus the responsibility to take this action. And the City Council has the ability, under the City Charter, to accept or reject that nominee.

This is an opportunity for Funkhouser and the council to work together to put a highly qualified person in office with a reasonable contract that extends into 2011, when a new council takes charge.

It would be unacceptable for Funkhouser and the council to allow an “acting” city manager to be in charge until those 2011 elections are over.

Local government needs strong leadership, especially now. Taxpayers need a manager who can help build a stronger and more effective professional city government.

Put that down as one final “true” statement.