There was a time not so long ago that the City Council professed to want an independent executive.

When Mary Jo Briggs was hired as city administrator in 2004, the council put a hefty severance clause into her contract; the goal was to insulate the professional wing of the administration from the political whims of council, mayor and public alike, giving the administrator a free hand to run the organization as her experience saw fit.

Those days appear over, given some responses to the recently completed “benchmarking study” on city services. Cherry-picking one inference from the study – that Puget Sound cities with a “council-manager” form of government cost the taxpayers less per capita than those with an elected mayor – some are already suggesting that it’s time to eliminate the mayor’s position. Not coincidentally, the effect would be to move the city’s top administrator from a position of independence to an instrument of the council itself.

The benchmarking study was commissioned to gauge the quality and delivery of city services against comparable municipalities in the Seattle area; used for comparison were Lynwood, Marysville, Mercer Island, Mountlake Terrace and Sammamish. The study proposed various adjustments within City Hall – adding a few positions here, subtracting others there, and rearranging departments a bit – with a goal of holding down employee costs by increasing efficiency. Those recommendations all merit a serious look.

More troublesome was the finding that the biggest obstacle to efficiency may be leadership itself – specifically, the inability of the executive and legislatives branches to agree on their proper roles and responsibilities. Evidence of such can be found in rampant turnover at City Hall, and Briggs’ recent public complaint – noteworthy, since she was hired to be just such an independent voice – of a lack of respect for her staff shown by the council.

There’s no doubt that citizens can get more for their money from City Hall. But it would be inaccurate to blame the inefficiency and high cost of city government on an elected executive – there are too many other factors to consider. Take population density, which on Bainbridge Island is 735 residents per square mile. The average of the other five cities studied: about 3,500. The conclusion is obvious: delivering city services at county densities is expensive. That disparity informs all public spending on this island, and will skew any comparison to other cities.

Consider too a public process that encourages officials to endlessly revisit plans and decisions – which, even after they’re finally resolved, may still be derailed at the 11th hour by some interest group that feels they were “left out.” Inefficient government may simply be a by-product of “the Bainbridge way”; it may in fact be precisely what a community skittish about change wants: that not much is accomplished. If that’s what the citizenry demands, it’s hard to see what difference the form of government makes.

Any system’s success is contingent on the players’ commitment to making that system work – and that’s the real implication of the benchmarking study. Not so long ago, it looked like the council and administration might transcend their differences and work toward common goals. Instead, the benchmarking study – which should be an objective look at city functionality – may be turned into a political document to consolidate power under the council.

We ought to take as our mandate not changing the system of governance, but rather, making the one we’ve got work.