I say maybe

My vote is "Maybe, if the right conditions are met" because I believe that if we define the dual position VERY VERY carefully, and are careful to hire for the correct personality (not just good qualifications/experience), then we'll do well with that role. But because the requirement is so finely tuned, I'm skeptical that the correct amount of job definition can be combined with a perfect candidate. More likeley, Kensington could get its needs met better by having a half-time City Manager and a 50-50 Chief/Patrol officer, as discussed.

I say maybe

My personal experience of Chief Garfield's effectiveness suggests that the duties currently required of a General Manager allow the Chief's attention to drift away from the management of police department and law enforcement issues. Like others who have responded, I would like to know more specifically what the General Manager is expected to do, and how these tasks will be prioritized and incorporated into the job of police chief. Ideally I believe that it would be best for Kensington if we could continue to have one person oversee all of these jobs, but not at the expense of law enforcement related issues.

So, my maybe vote is based upon a desire to continue with a General Manager/Police Chief as one position, but if it becomes clear that the nonlaw enforcement part of the job is too demanding then a change should be considered. Clearly the selection of a new KPD Chief is a very key to the success of this change.

I say maybe

Before I cast a vote one way or another, I'd like to know what specific duties would fall under a "general manager." I am very concerned about creating a new administrative position in a town of our size, without taking great care to outline the role and responsibilities. Even a part-time administrator would require oversight, as well as creating new salary and benefits costs. If the roles of police chief and general manager require significantly different competencies, have we considered hiring two different people, EACH part-time? At this point I have more questions than answers ;)

I say maybe

I have no expertise on these issues, but it strikes me that a law enforcement officer is not typically trained for (and perhaps by likely personal disposition is not necessarily interested in) "town manger" responsibilities. I therefore expect that adding those responsibilities to the job will make it harder to fill the job vacancy and that the town manager responsibilities will often take a back seat. My concern with hiring two people is related almost entirely to the potential additional expense. If the net result of having two separate positions is that any additional expense is fairly modest (i.e., can be covered within the range of our normal budgeting), then in my view the benefit outweighs the cost.

I say maybe

If the job is split between 2 people, those 2 people must be able to work smoothly together. I wouldn't want power struggles developing.

Also, how would money/benefits be allocated to get qualified people for both positions? Right now we are only paying for one position. I wouldn't want to end up with 2 unqualified people because we weren't offering a competitive salary for either position. If you work in Kensington, you at least want to be able to afford to live in or around Kensington so you don't come to resent the population that you serve.

I don't know enough about the 2 roles to know if it involves too much for one person to do effectively in a typical work week. I would be interested in having the current job description posted on line for citizen review so that I could get a better sense of what the current job entails and what salary/benefits are offered.

Thank you for putting this out to the citizenry. I have enjoyed participating.

I say maybe