Can an elected politician appoint someone to do their job?

I think it would likely get that person removed from office. If you are elected, you are expected to do the job.

You can hire great staff to execute your plan or appoint excellent advisers, but you are the one on the hook to the electorate.

Do you live in Sacramento? Our Mayor has a group of hand-picked, volunteer cronies who do most of the actual work of his office, and he just supervises.

Most Congress people have a large staff to handle the paperwork, read the legislation, answer the phones and interface with the general public.

I think it wouldn’t be so bad for a politician to appoint a private company to do the tasks she intends and fire them if they fail by certain deadlines.

Isn’t this already status quo? Am I missing something here?

Some cities have city managers who do the actual work. The mayor is more ceremonial, like a constitutional monarch.

Especially in a smaller city it makes a lot of sense. Instead of gambling every few years that they happen to have some very talented person who actually wants the job, they can pick from a pool of experienced professionals around the country.

Could you pay someone to make all the decisions for you? Yeah, sure. I mean, if you believe the show West Wing, the Chief of Staff serves as a virtual co-President.

But as for official matters, the elected official would still have to play a role – laws aren’t official until they contain the President’s signature (not his appointee’s), bills can’t be introduced into Congress by anyone but a Senator or Congressman, etc.

I thought the work of a politician was to be elected?

No, seriously, it sounds like the mayor of the small town is doing the job – starting by figuring out the best way to get the job done… which in this case means hiring someone. If they can convince their constituents or whomever else they need to go to for funding, then that kind of defines what they’re supposed to do, doesn’t it?

@jaytkay thanks…the city manager thing sounds cool