For city managers, unpopularity is part of the job.

In a contradiction to the old maxim about plumbing, you-know-what always runs uphill at City Hall, as when residents turn angry, it’s not the head of some part-time clerk that’s called for, but nearly always that of the manager.

Auburn’s recent survey about a new city manager illustrates this well. In its pile of responses, city councilors were told – in few uncertain terms – the right manager for Auburn is timely, prepared, nonpolitical, a budget wizard, populist, professional, fearless, mindful, a leader, and a follower of directives.

One important qualification was glaringly missing, though: must enjoy being unpopular.

This supersedes most others, because city managers must make uncomfortable decisions, in an environment where even minor policy or personnel changes are scrutinized – a breeding ground for discontent.

Perhaps the most interesting quote from Auburn’s surveys came courtesy of an anonymous respondent, who proclaimed the next city manager shouldn’t “make deals with wanna-be millionaires on developing old buildings which should be torn down. Example: Lewiston.”

Interesting, because Lewiston is a fine place to look, when searching for desirable qualities in a city manager. City Administrator Jim Bennett has embraced aggressive economic development, made practical decisions, pushed innovative policies and has stayed, for the most part, apolitical.

Bennett also certainly doesn’t mind being unpopular.

From the Bates Mill, to the Colisee, to the Southern Gateway, to Maple Street Park, to Casella, to the “rain tax” to many others, he’s been oft-ensconced in public maelstroms, twisting in their eyes. So, does this mean Bennett is the right man for Auburn?

It’s a loaded question, full of controversy and consideration. Lewiston-Auburn’s citizen committee on consolidation feels it’s a worthy question, a single manager could become a figurehead on the prow of good ship “collaboration,” sailing between the Twin Cities.

It’s a tantalizing idea worth exploring. Auburn’s vacant managerial position is an opportunity to do what the public wishes, as crystallized by Janine Valliere response about her preferred manager: someone “not tied to the hitching post of conventional ideas.”

Appointing one manager for Lewiston and Auburn would be about as unconventional as the Twin Cities could get.

Which is exactly why it’s worth considering.

It fits the spirit of the collaborative effort. Peter Garcia, chairman of the joint services commission, described the proposal with infomercial parlance, as a “free, at-home trial.” Bennett feels the job is manageable, and is willing to serve with the caveat that if it doesn’t work, the experiment could always stop.

Or in other words, if a co-manager becomes unpopular, the position can be jettisoned.

Given unpopularity comes with the job, though, this means a single manager could be a rousing success.