jp........, do you really think that there's no mechanism for the council to remove the city manager? Do some Googling, I'm not going to do it for you.

And, the people can compel the council to do whatever they want -including the removal of the city manager. But that would require a sizable number of people; not merely the two or three hallucinaters in town who are convinced that we're living under the Third Reich.

And, there is no groundswell for a mayoral system. If you think the potential is out there, start working on it.

@gazettefan: What if the council should choose NOT to hire a new City Manager? Seriously, though, suppose we had a really bad City Manager. OK, fine. Then how do the people get the council to remove that person? There just is no mechanism to do so. The bottom line here is that a city of 65,000 people really is not going to be all that well run by a very small council who all represent the city at large, and where the city also lacks a CEO with real power that was put there directly by the people. Janesville's just gotten beyond that in terms of size. Like I said before, there is well more than enough talent in this town to find a competent Mayor from amongst ourselves. If all we want is an administrator we could just as well pick up the phone and call Manpower.

A city manager's pay and benefits are a matter of what the market will bear.

The city council is elected by the people, therefore the council is enacting the will of the people when it chooses a city manager.

The city manager is there at the will of the people. If the people don't want him or her there anymore, they can have the council remove him or her.

The attempt to change Janesville's system about ten years ago to the mayoral system failed.

"The Progressive Movement got rid of mayors for a good reason."

It is interesting (given the political makeup), that Madison has a mayor.

Sheiffer was from Massachusetts, but chose to retire here. That's a plus for us, but city manager is just a job -- they don't owe us their lives. They want to have careers like anyone else.
.
Sedona is 10,000 people -- the size of Elkhorn. Janesville is 60,000 and Simi Valley, should he take the position, is 125,000. Taking numbers out of thin air, it's like moving from CEO of a 100-person firm to a 500-person firm to a 1000-person firm. It's the top job wherever; you can't advance unless you go to another "company".
.
The average tenure, it looks like, is from 4-7 years depending on various factors. So this is right in that range. Frustrating, but again, it's a job. We can hire someone else.

I could never figure out why he left Sedona to come here.

this does not surprise me in the least. levitt never was or wanted to become a "local." for all of his warts, i still see steve scheiffer walking city parks and frequenting local businesses. mr. scheiffer was a local. mr. levitt was looking for another rung on his ladder.

The city manager answers to the city council and does not set policy. He cannot act without the votes, and if he does a bad job he can be fired. The city manager does not have to collect campaign contributions and so is beholden only to his employers, the elected council. A mayor will be in office until the next election unless recalled, and will have to constantly assuage contributors and hold fundraisers. The Progressive Movement got rid of mayors for a good reason. It's pretty crazy that anyone would consider mayors the "solution" for something that has given us efficient, responsive government with almost nonexistent corruption, so you have to wonder what the angle is for anyone advocating that change. Alder districts were also considered a problem as they are very susceptible to one-party rule or permanent sinecure for an individual, the notorious "Chicago politics" approach. If you have a problem with the magic number being "four votes", well, with a mayor the magic number is one.
.
Levitt has done his best under what turned out to be extremely challenging problems, the Walker/Act 10 reduction in state funding on top of our GM departure and other budgetary limitations. I wish he'd stayed longer than 4 years, but on the other hand Sheiffer did stay too long and became more powerful against the council as a result. But I agree with others -- California has its own problems and he isn't leaving for an easy-peasy position. For one thing, Wisconsin's retirement system is fully funded, but California's has a severe deficit and no solution in sight.

@gwendt - if the size is nine, it has to be split up some way and by population would seem appropriate. Like it or not, the east side is about as big as the south and west sides put together. It is what it is.

I teach with a guy who was hired this year out of the Simi Valley district. They are still facing bankruptcy. I'm not sure that other than the great weather out here that it would be a step up...maybe not even lateral. You're boy had better take care in this decision.

jp = KAB? For sure the same backward thinking.

??? 4 councilors from the east side?????? NOW who wants control of the city --5 would be the magic number in control which means the east side would only need 1 vote to RULE the city!! if u REALLY want to rule the city that bad, at least cover it up a little --have 2 at large councilors (from the east side), then it wouldn't be so BLATANT !!

@rickwantsmoney: ROTFLMAO!!!!

Wouldn't you wonder why no one else wanted the job? :)

I think it's time for a Mayor-Council government. Having only seven councilors means that in a city of 65,000 people the name of the game is four. Four votes and you can get whatever you want. And there's no Mayor who can veto it. What's more, every one of the seven councilors represents the whole city rather than a neighborhood. To make matters worse, sometimes we get a City Manager who thinks the council works for him rather than the other way around. The last one pulled that stunt a lot. Certainly in the city the size of Janesville there's enough talent to produce a competent Mayor. A good council size would be I think nine. Given the relative sizes of the different sides of town it would seem appropriate to have four councilors from the east side, one from the center of town and two each from the west side and the south side. Managers don't really have a loyalty to the community - almost by definition they aren't going to be from here and it's going to take them at minimum a year, or two to learn how things work around here and what needs to get done. Being a small city, Janesville is going to be a rung on somebody's career climb - that's all it will ever be and once their done with Janesville we have to lie with what they did, or did not do during their time here. Now, a Mayor is directly accountable to the voters of the city - he does a bum job, toss him out and get a new one. As it is now, the citizens cannot do that with a Manager and a Manager is only very indirectly accountable to the people. Yep, I think it's time to go the Mayor-Council route for The Burg.

Janesville is too big for a mayor.

Now maybe we can go to a mayor

Then why are you staying?

with a sinking ship, the rats abandon the ship!

heh...I have friends in Simi Valley. Good luck with moving from here to there. It's a bedroom community. Different problems (some worse), but warmer is all. Not a piece of cake job.

Maybe there are more "tools" he can use in CA.

Congratulations Eric!

If given the chance to be City Mgr. in Simi Valley, CA or Janesville WI, which would you choose? Not a difficult decision to make, is it? Time to sell the snowblower.

Considering the mess he walked into with GM and it's feeder companies closing down he has done an excellent job keeping this community going. I wish he'd reconsider.

Dont go we cant deal with a different manager.

Good luck Mr. Levitt. I fully appreciate your sincere efforts.