Mayor Offers Full-Time Commitment to City
Though his position is just a part-time gig, Port Washington Mayor Tom Mlada has left his full-time job to focus his ambitions on making the city better.
Photos
After 10 years of working for St. Monica School & Parish in Whitefish Bay, Port Washington Mayor Tom Mlada has resigned from his position in order to focus more attention on making what he often calls Port's "quality of life" better.
"My intent is try to do the best that I can, to really match the full-time commitment of all our staff … and really enhance the quality of life," he said. "There's a lot to do ... there's a lot to help move forward — I do feel privileged to be at this place at this time," Mlada said.
Mlada, who also has three young daughters at home as well as a adult son, said he has enjoyed his time leading the city so far, and looks forward to the opportunities that await him.
"It has been truly the most enjoayble 8 months of my life in terms of serving this community," he said. While leaving his position gives him a lot more time to spend working on improving the city, that does not mean the city asked him to be a full-time mayor.
Earlier in January, that topic did arise on Patch after resident Rik Kluessendorf questioned whether adding a full-time mayor to the city would help fuel the economy.
"This city wants to thrive, but just hasn't figured out how to do so," he wrote in his blog on Patch's Local Voices. "We have a very active Main Street organization, but even that has not done the trick. Our downtown just can't seem to get over the hump to be the bustling center of activity that it should be. Worse, the city hasn't invested nearly as much effort in any other part of town recently."
Residents reacted to the column with mixed feelings — but many agreed with the lacking economic atmosphere and the city's inability to make it better.
"I get a little depressed when I drive past the empty car dealership on Spring Street," Robert B. wrote on the blog. "The 'For Sale or Lease' signs on the land west of Sentry have been there so long they've probably needed to be replaced for being out in the elements. And the strip mall next to Sentry? A little depressing there, too."
The mayor earns $7,500 and serves a three-year term.
In This article
-
-
Rik Kluessendorf
Joined Patch Monday, January 31, 2011 -
Port Washington Main Street
116 W Grand Ave Ste 205, Port Washington, WI -
-
Robert B.
Joined Patch Friday, September 23, 2011 -
Sentry Foods Stores
101 W Seven Hills Rd, Port Washington, WI
Greg Huegerich
8:43 am on Friday, January 11, 2013
That's a really impressive committment. Kudos!
Terry
8:58 am on Friday, January 11, 2013
Notice was missing here? Accomplishments. Eight months on job so far and what has been achieved. The mayor has made a whole bunch of new 15 person, blue ribbon panels. To the best of my knowledge, none of which has produced yet.
How are we working towards commercial and industrial development? How are we going in capturing back the momentum we lost to Saukville and Grafton over the last few decades?
These are subjects I want to hear about, not the fluff.
Rik Kluessendorf
10:25 am on Friday, January 11, 2013
To be fair, Terry, the mayoral position is not likely what you expect it is. Although I don't know you, so maybe the better way to put this is that the position of mayor in this city is not the position that most people would expect it to be.
Most of the things that we would commonly attribute to a mayor in this city are delegated to full-time administrators. You can look at the city ordinances to see how little power the mayor actually has. Nothing against the mayor himself, but his power here is effectively that of a glorified alderman. About the only thing he is really authorized to do is to create committees for recommendations.
Terry
2:32 pm on Friday, January 11, 2013
The mayor is the senior elected official in the city. He is the only elected official that answers to the city as a whole. The city administrator and city planer work for him. He can and should be setting the direction that the city goes in.
Now, I will accept that there are limits to what he can do. Show me that he at least has been trying and I will gratefully retract. But he has shown no public interest in developing the type of commercial and industrial development that the city actually needs. It has all been fluff and candy canes so far.
Rik Kluessendorf
10:35 pm on Friday, January 11, 2013
Terry, I'm not criticizing your criticism. I think I'm just trying to put the position into perspective. I'm afraid that one of the reasons that things have stayed the same around here despite a new mayor (and I'm sure there are more) is that the position of mayor is pretty gutted.
If you read chapters 1 and 2 of the city ordinances, there are only a few places where the mayor's role is anything distinguished from any of the alderman: the city-wide nature of his election; his nomination of a city assessor, treasurer, attorney, commission/committee members, health officer (all subject to approval of the common council); his appointment of citizens to the plan commission, appointment of aldermen to committees, and appointment of both to the Business Improvement District Board, plus his role as the chairman of various committees and the common council.
This is the entirety of the difference - by ordinance - between the mayor and any member of the common council. No one answers to him any differently than they answer to the aldermen as a group (the ordinances use the term "Mayor and common council" more frequently than any other reference to the mayor). He, personally, has no more authority to give the administrators specific directions than your alderman does.
Again, your criticism may be spot on, but to be fair, let's take a look at what his position actually entails, not what we think it should entail.
Earl Kelley
1:07 pm on Friday, January 11, 2013
Rik, are you saying that we need either a full time Administrator or a full time Mayor or both. What would be the cost, including benefits, for each of these options? Assuming that each of these options could be cost justified what would be the benefit to the city of each option?
Rik Kluessendorf
10:16 pm on Friday, January 11, 2013
Earl, my suggested options are
(a) leave the structure we have in place, but change around the authority that the city gives to specific job titles (again, the city ordinances are worth the read for anyone who wants to see how things are presently structured), which change would be financially neutral but which duties might not be well-reflected in the corresponding pay grades;
(b) limit the scope and position of some of the administrative positions while increasing the role of the mayor, which change would be in a grey area financially and would depend largely on how the option was structured, or
(c) eliminate an administrative position and place the current responsibilities of that position into the hands of a full-time mayor, which position would likely save the city at least $15k per year, if the Wisconsin taxpayer alliance averages are accurate (reporting that the average full-time mayor makes $63k (an increase of $55k, plus benefits), and a city administrator makes $70k, plus benefits). I'm not aware of what our specific administrator makes.
The primary benefit of all three scenarios is to place power in the hands of someone who is ELECTED, not appointed, which makes for greater transparency and accountability. The primary drawback I have heard suggested is that the specialized training of a city administrator is somehow more valuable than that which a candidate would bring to the position - I understand the argument to be a quality of candidate concern.