Chad Lawhorn recently compared the “Most Educated Cities in America,” by per-capita GDP. Lawrence is solidly in last place at $33,501: 20 percent lower than the next (Fort Collins at $41,805) and 26 percent below the mean average for all ten ($52,674). In spite of our rich social capital, fine educational institutions, and proximity to the Interstate 70 and Kansas Highway 10 corridors, we falter.

Local economies are complex, but consider one notable factor. Of the ten cities listed, seven directly elect their mayors (Corvallis, Ames, Columbia, Ithaca, Ann Arbor, Fort Collins, and Madison). In two, the mayor is elected by the city council for a two-year term (Boulder and Iowa City). Lawrence is unique in its odd system of a one-year, rotating, largely ceremonial mayor. This rather quaint structure is an impediment to our community’s well-being. It’s time to consider a new arrangement: direct election of the city mayor.

Among 55 percent of American cities with a council-manager form of government, 65 percent directly elect mayors, including nearly all cities in the Kansas City metro area. This rises from citizen demands for responsive and effective government. Elected mayors are held accountable for leadership: for articulating and pursuing community aspirations, for building unity in understandings and commitments. Mayoral campaigns focus on vision, strategies and implementation. Re-election depends upon success in getting the job done.

As is, Lawrence has the chamber of commerce leading economic development efforts. How is that arrangement faring? As another Lawhorn article suggests, not well. Per-capita income in Douglas County ranks near the bottom in Kansas, 91st out of 105 counties. Employment and wage growth are anemic. Acquiescing to the wish lists of developers is a weak substitute for proactive economic leadership: big boxes, strip malls and apartment complexes won’t create the well-paying, growth-oriented careers that Lawrence so desperately needs.

Turnover in the chamber’s front office (five CEOs in 15 years) suggests dissonance and confusion. I hold new CEO Larry McElwain in high regard, but years of churn suggests systemic problems that may persist in spite of this excellent appointment. The Chamber is a critical partner in economic development, but we risk too much with too little reason for confidence in the current arrangement. We can do better.

Beyond advancing economic development, a four-year mayor would offer other important benefits related to standing, acquired knowledge and sustained influence.

Currently, there are a number of initiatives underway to align administrative/economic interests in the KC metro area. Lawrence is inextricably linked to regional economies, infrastructure, social dynamics, formal and informal structures. Failure to strengthen regional relationships will leave us more isolated and irrelevant. A one-year mayor lacks both authority and consistency to be optimally effective in these situations. The city manager can go no further in advancing ideas or commitments than he reckons is supported by a commission majority. If we want to be a serious player in the regional economy, we need representation that speaks with a strong voice, holds office long enough to master regional dynamics and provides a steady presence over time. We need an elected mayor.

An elected mayor would also strengthen City Hall. We are blessed with professional and altruistic public servants. But even the best organizations need external pressure to keep a performance edge. A four-year mayor would be well-positioned to gather new ideas from other organizations, such as the Alliance for Innovation. New ideas can inspire innovation and excellence in our fine city staff, which will prove essential to overcoming challenges and realizing hopes.

I close with three suggestions:

• Provide adequate funding for the mayor’s office. If we expect greater productivity from the mayor, we need to provide adequate compensation, travel funding and staff support.

• Give no new authority to the mayor relative to other council members. Let him or her exhaust the friendly art of persuasion — along with existing authority to chair meetings and nominate appointees — before resorting to potentially polarizing tools and powers. However, let’s do provide sufficient authority to ensure responsiveness from City Hall.

• Consider this idea in a deliberative manner. As a “home-rule” city, we have legal authority to set our own governmental structure. But let’s do so thoughtfully. A good start would be for the commission to appoint a blue-ribbon panel to explore the possibility, gather public input and make recommendations.

Change is daunting. but no more daunting than sticking with a status quo that is clearly failing us.