By KEVIN NEVERS

The students of the Chesterton High School Honor Economics class are unanimous about one thing: attached to the position of Chesterton Town Manager should be much greater authority than the Town Council seems willing at this point to give it.

At a special meeting on Thursday in the CHS auditorium, the three blocks of Dave Brandenburg’s Honors Economics class presented their recommendations to members, based on weeks of research and interviews conducted as part of an initiative dubbed “The Future of Chesterton.” Last year the Honor Economics students undertook as their special project economic development in Duneland. This year, the desirability and feasibility of the town’s hiring a manager.

As it happens, that issue reemerged in council discussion only weeks ago, after months on hiatus, when Town Economic Development Coordinator Dwayne Williams resigned, effectively freeing a salary which could partially compensate a town manager. President Jim Ton, R-1st, quickly jumped at the opportunity presented, a special meeting was held, and a job description was drafted, whose most notable feature is that the Chesterton Town Manager would not supervise department heads and would not have the power to hire and fire employees.

Many of Brandenburg’s students attended that special meeting, and as much as anything else the three blocks fashioned their presentations on Thursday as responses to that job description. And each one was explicitly clear on the question of authority. As Block 5 put it, the town manager “will need some autonomy to do his job,” and “too many limitations will turn the town manager into a mere secretary.” The town manager “is to be ‘above’ the department heads, Block 5 added, and the council “must allow the manager to make everyday decisions on a regular basis.” More to the point, the town manager should have “absolute power over the hiring and firing of town government employees,” a policy calculated to “remove politics from the issue.”

Block 5 concurred and went so far as to say that the “power constraint” which the council has placed on the position “concerns our group.” Any “bias” indulged by department heads in hiring and firing “could hold the town back,” Block 5 argued. “It just makes sense to have an individual person” possess that authority, although the town manager “would let department heads do their job while supervising them.”

Block 8 made a similar recommendation. “The town manager will enforce all laws and town ordinances, appoint all employees, establish personnel policies, award contracts, recommend budgets, write grants, handle all economic inquiries, and supervise department operations,” Block 8 said.

Like the council, on the other hand, all three blocks envision the town manager to be above all an economic development guru who would, as Block 3 enumerated, do the following: “encourage steady growth of business activities in balance with the anticipated needs of population growth”; encourage growth of small and light industries and offices to diversify and strengthen the tax base and provide employment”; “maintain and develop the Central Business District”; and “encourage the development of tourism-oriented businesses to the Town of Chesterton.”

The three blocks did offer different answers, however, to a key question: how much should the Chesterton Town Manager be paid? The council has opted for a salary range of $55,000 to $85,000. Block 8 found that range acceptable. Block 3 recommended the upper range, or $85,000.

Block 5, though, found the ideal salary to be $110,000 plus benefits and ventured that the council is “wanting too much with too little money.” The issue of salary is “extremely critical,” Block 5 emphasized, and is “the single most important aspect of our presentation.”

How does Block 5 propose paying that sum, which would be the highest earned by any Chesterton municipal employee? Students pointed to Williams’ salary, being held in reserve, and also presented an innovative plan under which Chesterton businesses could sponsor landmarks in town, like the bandstand in Thomas Memorial Park, Dunes Friendship Land, and the new skate park. In addition, Block 5 cited a $128,722 budget surplus, mentioned in a story in the Oct. 16, 2007, edition of the Chesterton Tribune. That sum, however, is actually the projected surplus of the Chesterton Utility, an independent entity, is already earmarked, and is being used for making monthly transfers of moneys to the Capital Improvement and Collections Maintenance funds.

None of the blocks questioned the need for a town manager, and each appeared to presume the desirability of the council’s creating that position. Block 8 did suggest that residents “are currently unaware of the steps that need to be taken for a much-needed advance in the town,” a claim with which Member Emerson DeLaney, R-5th, took a bit of issue. When voters overwhelmingly rejected city-status in 2006, he said, they were simultaneously advocating for a town manager. “That drove the Town Council to think about it.”

The council was clearly impressed by Brandenburg’s students. “All three groups have really advanced the amount of knowledge we have and the things we have to think about,” Ton said. “You really ratcheted up the process. You gave us things to think about and things we need to re-think. My congratulations to all three blocks for their work.”

Posted 5/9/2008