By Steve Segner
Sedona needs leadership grounded in community experience — not retired executives new to town.
Sedona attracts many talented and successful new residents who want to become involved in local politics. That interest is welcome. But like any profession, public service requires time, experience, and an understanding of how local government actually works.
Government is not the same as running a private business. It operates within legal frameworks, Arizona open meeting laws, budgeting requirements, transportation planning, regional partnerships, and public processes that exist for good reason. Effective local leadership comes from understanding those systems and participating in them over time.
The idea that Sedona is somehow “broken” and needs to be rescued is simply false. Candidates for City Council who make that claim are not being honest and realistic.
Sedona has nearly paid off its water treatment plant. The city maintains strong financial reserves, has no city property tax, and benefits from a steady stream of visitor-generated tax revenue that supports local services. We now have a world-class transportation system, a new parking structure, and extensive public participation in major projects and planning efforts.
The mayor of Sedona is not a CEO. The mayor, one of seven council members, has very limited independent authority. In fact, the mayor cannot even place an item on the agenda without support from another council member. The day-to-day work of the city government is carried out by professional staff under the direction of the city manager.
We need leaders already connected to the community — people who understand Sedona’s history, its neighborhoods, its volunteer culture, its advisory boards, nonprofits, commissions, and ongoing public discussions.
If someone truly wants to serve Sedona, the first step should be involvement: serve on committees, attend transportation meetings, volunteer with community organizations, participate in public workshops, and learn how local and state government actually function.
These conversations have been happening publicly for years. Transportation planning, shuttle systems, employee parking, circulation, and visitor management have all been discussed extensively through SIM committees, advisory groups, merchant meetings, and public hearings. Anyone actively engaged in the community would already know this.
I have attended these meetings for years and have not seen most of the candidates on the “slate” participate in those discussions, including the new candidate for Mayor.
Sedona already has nearly $100 million in reserves and investments. We do not need someone from outside the process to arrive and explain how the city should manage itself. Sedona is functioning well, and public input is ongoing every day.
What we need are leaders who have already done the homework.
Get involved. Serve the community. Learn the issues. Understand the process before asking voters to hand over the mayor’s or city council seats.
3 Comments
Great write up Steve. You’re 1,000% (as MAGA brain dead like to say)correct about many key points especially what it take to be a leader in government rather than a snake and grifter. We need good honest leadership that doesn’t have a self enrichment self entitlement obsession and objective. We need leadership that helps those in need in our community. One that repairs not just replaces our infrastructure. One that works with everyone in the community rather than a select few LOUD voices seeking to profiteer off the right person being elected so they can make private investments and make private profit off of what should be non profit projects or projects designed to fund and benefit future projects.
Don’t fall for another self confessed snake-
Smoke and Mirrors
Song by Puscifer ‧ 2015
You confessed one day to have been a snake and deceiver
But when your moment came, to shed that skin
You just slithered away
You just slithered away
Crystal clear to us all, when you say
“We all want the same thing”
That you don’t, you want the bigger piece and the praise
There are those who have seen, and those soon to beware
What your smoke is concealing
Just a trail of bones, atop a lemming’s hill
All fallen prey
All fallen prey
All fallen prey
To the liar
Not a saint
Not a martyr
Just a snake
And a liar
We used to believe, when you’d say
“Were all in this together”
No more, we all see
Now the mirror is broken, we all know
What your spell was concealing
Just hollow eyes, a stolen crown but
Not a king
No, not a king
No, not a king
Just the liar
Not a saint
Not a martyr
Just a snake
And a liar
Songwriters: Maynard James Keenan / Mat Mitchell
Experience is a strong and time-tested indicator of readiness and value, but it does not by itself answer whether change is needed or whether Sedona is being governed as well as it could be. The widespread use of term limits elsewhere reflects a simple idea: new perspectives can add value.
An experienced candidate like Tony Hauserman, running for an open seat, will still need to present a clear and detailed vision. The presence of an organized slate raises the stakes—no candidate can rely on familiarity or resume alone. Voters will be looking for substance. That creates opportunity for someone new to the ropes to vie for the open seat—someone with clear vision and a proven ability to execute.
For those with a lesser civic service record everything hinges on the need to convince voters change is needed. Some have been arguing things are dire—that anyone even remotely attached to the status quo is to be rejected. Voters should expect specific, evidence-backed critiques from anyone arguing for major change, especially since incumbents by default have the edge.
I’m excited to see what The Residents First Slate presents. The change message faces challenges if it doesn’t account for the good things for residents already in the bank: what has been accomplished, what is already executing, and what is already in planning. Brian and Melissa made a compelling case at the KSB Candidate Forum that we need to keep in view all the good that has been achieved or active.
The Residents First slate also risks failing to persuade the general voter that change is essential if its case rests on broad or repeated assertions. Ratcheting up the volume about how terrible things are without proper substantiation will become a hard row to hoe. The Samaire campaign, which strongly stoked populist sentiment, garnered an intriguing level of support. In the end, if only by a small margin, the majority chose experience and calm waters. That history suggests that simple outcry is a risky strategy.
Are the new entrants saying we stop some or all of the good things in play? They have called for reassessment of many things, so then for sure we’ll know it’s being done correctly. That borders on presumptuous if not paired with specifics about what exactly has gone so very wrong, like not just claiming overruns that are in fact changes in scope (most if not all the increases on the Forest Rd extension). Changes in scope aren’t budget overruns, as councilor Dunn explained recently.
An issue in overcoming the lack of civic service history, already seen this season, is about accuracy. We’ve heard: ideas not allowed by state law; errors like the city has 54 departments (to be fair that might have been said tongue in cheek); that the mayor gets an office; fiscal impropriety or error exists in the face of passing an audit with financial reporting winning an award. This is all typical stuff candidates say. I hope there is awareness that inaccuracies are fodder for the competition, especially if they stack up, because it undermines the argument that business acumen alone can carry the day.
As far as the mayoral race, it is difficult to step directly into that role without prior experience on council, committees, citizen academies, or sustained involvement with local nonprofits and civic advocacy. That said, candidates like Henry bring business experience and demonstrated competence—how effectively that translates into the civic arena will be important for voters to evaluate.
If the need for change is truly dire then perhaps exceptions can be made to the normal path to office. Voters should see that urgency reflected in clear, accurate, and specific evidence. The burden of proof should be very high.
“If the need for change is truly dire then perhaps exceptions can be made to the normal path to office”
Sure? I mean we already have a convicted felon sex offender self enriching billionaire (soon to be trillionaire and multi trillionaire if not stopped) for POTUS so why not give more shiny new unqualified people a chance to do even more damage to our country, states, towns and cities just because Democracy is too difficult for some to profit off of? I’d much rather vote in someone with actual City Management skills than having to give a shiny new object the years it takes to learn the job while at the same time being charged with running a system they know little to nothing about.