Village of Montgomery Mayor Mike Hembury has opened a discussion that deserves serious consideration: Should the village hire a professional manager to oversee day-to-day operations?
In a recent letter to residents, Hembury argued that a village manager would bring professional guidance and a degree of political independence to local government. He pointed to a number of contentious issues — development proposals, sewer expansion, parking concerns and infrastructure repairs — and suggested that many of them might have unfolded differently had there been a full-time administrator serving as a “gatekeeper.”
His argument is not without merit.
Running a municipality has become increasingly complicated. State mandates grow more numerous every year. Labor negotiations, grant opportunities, infrastructure planning and land-use regulations require specialized knowledge that elected officials, most of whom serve part-time, may not possess. A village manager can provide continuity and expertise that transcend election cycles and political rivalries.
Perhaps the strongest argument in favor of the position is a practical one. There is no guarantee that residents who seek public office also possess the training and experience needed to administer a modern municipality. Hiring a professional administrator, at least in theory, addresses that concern.
Nor is Montgomery alone in grappling with the issue.
Ironically, the City of Newburgh — where Hembury once served as a police officer — appears to be moving in the opposite direction. City officials are establishing a charter review commission that will examine whether Newburgh should abandon its city manager form of government in favor of one headed by a full-time mayor-administrator. Critics warn that even considering such a change could make it harder to recruit qualified candidates for the city’s vacant manager position.
Meanwhile, the Village of Walden recently relaxed residency requirements in order to appoint an acting village manager who lives outside the community, highlighting another challenge: finding qualified candidates.
The village manager model, however, is hardly without drawbacks.
The most obvious is cost. Adding the salary and benefits of another high-level administrator would place additional pressure on village taxpayers. Residents have every right to ask whether the expense would be justified and whether those funds might be better spent on roads, water infrastructure or public safety.
There is also the question of accountability.
Under Montgomery’s current system, major decisions are made collectively by elected officials who answer directly to voters. A manager with broad authority could centralize power in one individual, particularly when it comes to personnel matters and administrative decisions that are now shared among the board. Supporters may call that efficiency; critics may call it diminished oversight.
Neither concern should be dismissed.
Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in the middle.
For decades, discussions about consolidating services among the Town of Montgomery and its three villages have surfaced periodically. Although there appears to be little appetite for dissolving any municipality, shared services have enjoyed broader support.
Maybe the next step is not four separate administrators, but one townwide administrative team. Such an arrangement could oversee budgets, coordinate departments and provide professional management while allowing each municipality to retain its identity and elected leadership. Shared expertise could lower costs while preserving local control.
Whether Montgomery ultimately hires a village manager or not, Mayor Hembury raises an important question.
Local government is becoming increasingly complex. The challenge is finding the right balance between professional administration and democratic accountability.
There are no easy answers. But asking the question is a good place to start.