Attachment

COUNCIL-MANAGER OR “STRONG MAYOR” Fhe Choice is Clear Learn the Facts About Council-Manager Government Everyone wants strong politica! le eadership—neighborhoods, civic leaders, and the business community included. And today’s complex communities cannot succeed without the guidance of effective mayors who provide a sense of direction and contribute to the smooth functioning of a locai government. But communities also need thoughtful dedicated council members, who work with the mayor to establish appropriate policy, and competent, professional managers to carry out those policies. None of the three are mutually exclusive; they can and do work together today in many of the country’s successful council-manager communities. Today council-manager government is the fastest growing form of government in the United States; it frees up the elected body to establish policy, which is carried out by an appointed manager and an administrative staff. The manager is accountabie to the entire council for the satisfactory implementation of council policy and the day-to-day administration of municipal affairs. There are compelling reasons why many of the nation’s most successful cities and towns have adopted council-manager government rather than the “strong-mayor’” form. Council-manager government encourages neighborhood input into the political process, diffuses the power of special interests, and eliminates partisan politics from municipal hiring, firing, and contracting decisions. People who take time to learn the facts about council-manager government are likely to join the ranks of those who favor this popular form. Consider the following when deciding which form of government is best for your community: Neighborhuods Strengthen Their Voice The council-manager form encourages open communication between citizens and their government. Under this form, each member of the governing body has an equai voice in policy development and administrative oversight. This gives neighborhoods and diverse groups a greater opportunity to influence policy. Under the “strong mayor” form, political power is concentrated in the mayor, which means that other members of the elected body relinquish at least some of their policy-making power and influence. This loss of decision-making power among council members can have a chilling effect on the voices of neighborhoods and city residents.

The Power of Special Interests is Diffused Under the council-manager form of government, involvement of the entire elected body ensures a more balanced approach to community decision making, so that all interests can be expressed and heard—not just those that are well funded. Under the “strong mayor” form, however, it’s easier for special interests to use money and political power to influence a single elected official, rather than having to secure a majority of the city council’s support for their agenda. Merit-Based Decision Making Vs. Partisan Politics Under council-manager government, qualifications and performance—and not skillful navigation of the political election process—are the criteria the elected body uses to select a professional manager. The professional manager, in turn, uses his or her education, experience, and training to select department heads and other key managers to oversee the efficient delivery of services. In this way, council-manager government maintains critical checks and balances to ensure accountability at city hall. Functioning much like a business organization's chief executive officer. the appointed professional manager administers the daily operations of the community. Through a professional staff, the manager ensures the effective provision of services and enforces the policies adopted by the elected body. He or she, in turn, uses merit as the leading criterion for making all hiring and personnel decisions. Appointed local government managers have no guaranteed term of office or tenure. They can be dismissed by the council at any time, for any reason. As a result, they constantly must respond to citizens and be dedicated to the highest ideals of honesty, integrity, and excellence in the management and delivery of public services. Under the “strong mayor” form of government, the day-to-day management of community operations shifts to the mayor, who often facks the appropriate training, education, and experience in municipal administration and finance to oversee the delivery of essential community services. Also, under the “strong mayor” form, the temptation is strong to make decisions regarding the hiring and firing of key department head positions—such as the police chief, public works director, and finance director—based on the applicant’s political support rather than his or her professional qualifications, Many Successful Cities Use Councii-Manager Government Council-manager government works: 1t balances diverse interests, responds quickly to challenges, and brings the community together to resolve even the toughest issues. Currently, more than 75.5 million Americans live in council-manager communities, and the system continues to flourish. This form of government is used by thousands of small, medium, and large jurisdictions, including San Antonio, Texas; San Diego, Sacramemto, and San Jose, California: and Phoenix, Arizona. Consider these examples:

San Jose, California (pop. 835.500) i | Long viewed as the “capital” of Silicon | History Argues for the Council-Manager Form of Government : . ; Valley. San Jose uses the council-manager | Approximately 90 years old, the council-manager form of | form of government to successfully manage _| government has proven its adaptability; today it is the | diverse interests in an environment of most popular choice of structure among U.S. : rapid residential and commercial growth. communities with populations of 2,500 or greater. During the past dozen years, for example, an average of 44 U.S. cities annually have adopted the council-manager form, | Bartelsmann Award for being one of the two while an average of only two per year have abandoned it. pest managed cities in the world. Today. the city continues fo maintam its reputation Council-manager government, however, was not always | 45a model U.S. community. an option In the late 19th and early anh centuries, there | Boulder, Colorado (pop. 85,127) was widespread corruption, graft, and nepotism among | One of the nation’s most beautifil and US. cities. The stories of New York City’s Tammany ; environmentally conscious communities. Hall and Kansas City’s Pendergrast machine are only two |; the city of Boulder successfully examples of the misuse of local government power | balances environmental quality with during this time , 2 vibrant business climate. | Phoenix, Arizona (pop. 983,392) In 1993. Phoenix captured the international =| | Dayton, Ohio (182, 044) By the early 20th century, reformers were looking tor ' Dayton enhanced the process of involving ways to return control of municipal government to, citizens in community decision makingby | citizens. Those reformers advocated the council-manager | steating neighborhood-based priority boards structure of government to eliminate the corruption found | © deal with key funding, service. and : - Tat: : - yee neighborhood issues. ' in many cities. With its emphasis on professional training and accountability, the council-manager form of government was adopted by a number of cities in the 1920s and 1930s. It took years to diffuse the power entrenched in turn-of-the-century city political machines and special interests. Today, however, citizens throughout the U.S. have resumed control by adopting or retaining council-manager government in their community and enjoying representative democracy at its best. Prepared by the California City Management Foundation 1998 Ae Can Foye A hic are > ete gO Cree toy ‘a CAEL 2 / Q e Lo eee yt beter cone —_ Py Kecatlo 407 fT. fe — ‘ a 7 i Lee Se goletivr Scfecte& SA gow aa u fhe Ge a

deen epee ger ee teeeweee. TN te ce ttnwenee ya sears, Citta anes Fa a ive ee pap apy ~ close window NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES Strengthening & promoting cities as centers of apportunity, leadership and govemance November 19, 2005 About Cities : Forms of municipal government ‘The Constitution of the United States of America does not mention local governments. Local governments are created by and regulated by the states. This means that to speak about cities or other forms of local government in the United States is to speak about fifty different legal and political situations. The states outline the powers of municipal governments in charters. Historically, there are four forms for municipal government in the United States: @ the mayor-council; ®@ council-manager; ® commission; and © town meeting. A recent survey determined that the predominant forms are: © Council-Manager form of government with 58% ®@ Mayor-Council form of government with 38% © Other form of government with 4% (Including the commission and town meeting) Recent studies indicate that the distinctions between the mayor-councit and the council-manager forms are becoming smalier and smaller. City officials continually change the structure of the municipal government. Those cities with a primarily mayor-council form often adopt features to improve management, while counci-manager cities adopt features to increase their Political responsiveness, and leadership. Sources: DeSantis, Victor S. and Tari Renner. “City Government Structures: an Attempt at Classification” State and Local Government Review, vol. 34, no. 2, (Spring 2002). Barnes, William R. Forms and Structure of Municipal Government in the United States, presentation to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on October 24, 1991 in Edinburgh, Scotland. Frederickson, H. George, Curtis Wood, and Brett Logan. “How American City Governments Have Changed: The Evolution of the Model City Charter” National Civic Review. vol. 90, no. 1, (2001). Frederickson, H. George, and Gary Alan Johnson. “The Adapted American City: A Study in Institutional Dynamics.” Urban Affairs Review vol. 36, no. 6 (July 2001). National League of Cities. Choices of the Citizenry: Forms of Municipal Government. Washington, DC: National League of Cities, May 1989. Svara, James H. “The Shifting Boundary Between Elected Officials and City Managers in Large Council-Manager Cities” Public Administration Review, vol. 59, no. 1 (January-February 1999). Svara, James H. Two Decades of Continuity and Change in American City Councils. commissioned by the National League of Cities, September, 2003. National League of Cities 1301 Pennsyivania Avenue NW Suite 550 - Washington, DC 20004 Phone:(202) 626-3000 * Fax:(202) 626-3043 info@nic.org + www.nic.org Privacy Policy lof 1 11/19/2005 6:33 AM

1 of 2 ieee ee Settee ee Say ne eae a eT close window x Go NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CIES Strangthening & promoting cities as centers of apportunity, leadership and govemance November 19, 2005 About Cities : The Four Historic Forms of City Government Mayor-Council Characteristics include: © Separation of powers between directly elected mayor and city council ® Mayor has executive powers while council has legislative powers ® Mayor is directly elected to office, often full-time and paid This form tends to be in older, larger cities, or in very small cities, under 25,000 population. It is most popular in the Mid-Atlantic and Midwestern parts of the US. Depending on the city charter, the mayor could have weak or strong powers. Cities with variations in the mayor-council form of government are: @ Los Angeles, CA; ®@ Houston, TX; ® Topeka, KS; and @ Minncapolis, MN, Council-manager Characteristics include: © City council oversees the general administration, makes policy, sets budget © Council hires a city manager to carry out day-to-day administrative operations © Often the mayor is chosen from among the council on a rotating basis This form is common in cities of population over 10,000, mainly in the Southeast and Pacific coast areas. Depending on the city charter, the mayor could have weak or strong powers. Some examples are: © Phoenix, AZ; ®@ San Diego, CA; @ Salt Lake City, UT; and © Rockville, MD. Commission Characteristics include: ® Voters elect a individual commissioners to a smail governing board ® Each commissioner Is responsible for one specific aspect, such as fire, police, public works, heaith, finance © One commissioner is designated as chairman or mayor, who presides over meetings ®@ The commission has both a legislative and executive functions The commission form of city government is the oldest form of government in the US, but exists today in only a few cities, such as: © Sunrise, FL; and © Fairview, TN. Representative Town Meeting Characteristics include: © All citizens can attend and participate in town meeting discussion 11/19/2005 6:38 AM

© Individuals are chosen by the general electorate to represent them In voting @ Each town meeting must be announced with a warrant that provides the date, time, and location of the meeting and specifies the items to be discussed © The selectmen are responsible for implementing policy The town meeting is lauded as the purest form of democracy since it allows all voters a say in how the town is run. However, it is quite rare, mainly found in small municipalities in the New England states, such as: ® Bowdoin, ME; and ® Lexington, MA. Sources: DeSantis, Victor S. and Tari Renner. “City Government Structures: an Attempt at Classification” State and Local Government Review, vol. 34, no. 2, (Spring 2002). Forms and Structure of Municipal Government in the United States, presentation by William R. Barnes to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on October 24, 1991 in Edinburgh, Scotland. Frederickson, H. George, Curtis Wood, and Brett Logan. “How American City Governments Have Changed: The Evolution of the Model City Charter” National Civic Review. vol. 90, no. 1, (2001). Frederickson, H. George, and Gary Alan Johnson. “The Adapted American City: A Study in Institutionat Dynamics.” Urban Affairs Review vol. 36, no. 6 (July 2601). National League of Cities. Choices of the Citizenry: Forms of Municipal Government. Washington, DC: National League of Cities, May 1989. Svara, James H. “The Shifting Boundary Between Elected Officials and City Managers in Large Council-Manager Cities” Public Administration Review, vol. 59, no. 1 (January-February 1999). Svara, James H. Two Decades of Continuity and Change in American City Councils. commissioned by the National League of Cities, September, 2003. National League of Cities 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Suite 550 * Washington, DC 20004 Phone:(202) 626-3000 * Fax:(202) 626-3043 info@nic.org * www.nic.org Privacy Policy 11/19/2005 6:38 AM

Aree Oh uke ee DLP nn WEB GLUUL MIO TLIO EU EUS. 1 “popup close window | Go NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES Strengthening & promating cities as centers of opportunity, leadership and governance November 19, 2005 About Cities : Powers of the mayor Cities in the United States are sometimes categorized as having either “weak” and “strong” mayors. Most “strong” mayors are in the mayor-council form of government, and are directly elected by citizens to that office. Most “weak” mayors are mayors in a council-manager form, and are elected by and from the council. The distinction is in the level of political power and administrative authority provided by the city charter to the mayor. In actual practice, there is no sharp line between “weak” and “strong” mayors. Rather there are continua of authority and power, along which cities are spread. Yet, it is useful to contrast the differences. Characteristics of a “weak” mayor: © The council is powerful, with both legislative and executive authority © The mayor is not truly the chief executive, with limited power and/or no veto power © The council can prevent the mayor from effectively supervising city administration @ There may be many administrative boards and commissions that operate independently from the city government Characteristics of a “strong” mayor: ®@ The mayor is the chief executive officer, centralizing executive power ®@ The mayor directs the administrative structure, appointing and removing of department heads ®@ while the council has legislative power, the mayor has veto power ® The council is relieved of day-to-day administration Sources: DeSantis, Victor S. and Tari Renner. “City Government Structures: an Attempt at Classification” State and Local Government Review, vol. 34, no. 2, (Spring 2002). Forms and Structure of Municipal Government in the United States, presentation by William R. Barnes to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on October 24, 1991 in Edinburgh, Scotiand. Frederickson, H. George, Curtis Wood, and Brett Logan. “How American City Governments Have Changed: The Evolution of the Model City Charter” National Civic Review. vol. 90, no. 1, (2001). Frederickson, H. George, and Gary Alan Johnson. “The Adapted American City: A Study in Institutional Dynamics.” Urban Affairs Review vol. 36, no. 6 (July 2001). National League of Cities. Choices of the Citizenry: Forms of Municipal Government. Washington, OC: National League of Cities, May 1989. Svara, James H. “The Shifting Boundary Between Elected Officials and City Managers in Large Council-Manager Cities” Public Administration Review, voi. 59, no. 1 (January-February 1999). Svara, James H. Two Decades of Continuity and Change in American City Councils. commissioned by the National League of Cities, September, 2003. National League of Cities 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Suite 550 ' Washington, DC 20004 Phone:(202) 626-3000 * Fax:(202) 626-3043 { of 2 11/19/2005 6:39 AM