How many deputy mayors do we really need?

The next phase of the reform must reassess numbers, responsibilities, cost and accountabilityThe reform of local government was not completed with the mergers of municipalities and communities. Its real test began when the new municipalities were called upon to operate in practice and to demonstrate that a larger administrative structure can be combined with efficiency, economy and proximity to the citizen. More than two years later, one of the institutions that should properly be assessed is that of the deputy mayor. Not in order to question the need for local representation, but to determine whether the institution serves the purpose for which it was created. What the law actually provides Public discussion sometimes creates the impression that the deputy mayor is an elected representative without substantive responsibilities. Section 63 of the Municipalities Law presents a different picture. The deputy mayor chairs the municipal committee of his or her municipal district and exercises specific local responsibilities. These include overseeing matters of cleanliness and the condition of infrastructure, parks, green areas, the road network and pavements, being kept informed of correspondence concerning the district and cooperating with municipal councilors in resolving local problems. At the same time, the deputy mayor participates in the management committee and, with voting rights, in municipal committees may represent the municipality upon the mayor’s instructions when matters concerning his or her district are discussed and oversees matters relating to social welfare and social cohesion. The law also permits the mayor to delegate additional responsibilities to a deputy mayor and provides, subject to certain conditions, for the mayor to be replaced by a deputy mayor in the event of absence or incapacity. The issue, therefore, is not the absence of a statutory role, but the extent to which that role is exercised in practice and translated into tangible results for citizens. An elected representative with democratic legitimacy The deputy mayor is not an appointed official. He or she is elected and derives democratic legitimacy directly from the citizens of the municipal district. That also creates increased responsibility. Citizens can reasonably expect their deputy mayor to know the problems of the area, to raise them where decisions are taken and to follow up on their resolution. This proximity becomes even more important after the mergers, particularly for smaller or more remote local communities. Before we count deputy mayors, let us measure their work The 20 new municipalities created 93 deputy mayor positions. Their reduction is already being discussed, while scenarios have been published suggesting that their number could be reduced to between 35 and 45. The discussion is legitimate. It would, however, be wrong to begin with the number itself. Before deciding how many deputy mayors we need, we must first answer a more fundamental question, what exactly do we want a deputy mayor to do? The answer cannot be the same for every municipal district. Population, geographical area, distance from the administrative centre, particular local characteristics and actual needs should form objective criteria. Cost must be linked to results The annual payroll cost of the 93 deputy mayors has been estimated at approximately €2.6 million. The amount cannot be ignored, but neither is it sufficient on its own to determine the value of a democratic institution. The more appropriate question is, what public value is generated in return for this expenditure? If a deputy mayor serves as a genuine point of reference for citizens, identifies problems, follows up on their resolution, coordinates with municipal services and is accountable for his or her work, then the institution acquires real substance. If, by contrast, the role is reduced to a title without clear responsibility or meaningful capacity to intervene, even a lower cost becomes difficult to justify. Fewer, but with greater responsibility The next phase of the reform should connect three elements, number, responsibilities and accountability. At the beginning of each year, a specific field of responsibility and set of objectives could be defined for each deputy mayor, making use also of the possibility under section 63 to delegate additional responsibilities. At the end of the year, a brief report could be published for each municipal district, setting out which problems were recorded, what interventions were made, which issues were resolved and which remain outstanding. In this way, citizens would know not only who represents them, but also what has actually been achieved. Accountability would acquire substance and the discussion would cease to be merely numerical. The reform of local government must have the courage to evaluate and correct itself. If experience shows that 93 deputy mayors are more than the new municipalities genuinely need, the number should be reconsidered. If their number is reduced, however, those who remain should be given a stronger, clearer and measurable role. Ultimately, the question is not how many deputy mayors we can have. It is how many we truly need and what we require from each of them.