HomeMy WebLinkAboutTML Issue Brief-Forms of Municipal GovernmentIssue Brief
Choices of the Citizenry:
Forms of Municipal Government
in the United States
Municipal Reference Service
Office of Membership Services
National League of Cities
1301 Pennsyiania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
(202) 626-3130
May, 1989
CITY OF EIJLESS
NOV 261990
RECEIVED
INTRODUCTION
The structure of municipal government --how it is organized --
refers to the way in which the powers and responsibilities of the
government are divided among the elected and the appointed city
officials. The manner in which a local government is structured is
important, as the operation of local government is directly
affected by its organizational structure.
There are currently four basic forms of municipal government
in the United States: Mayor --Council, Council -Manager, Commission,
and Town Meeting. This Issue Brief will describe each of the four
forms of government, trace the history of each, present the
perceived advantages and disadvantages of each form, and illustrate
the division of responsibilities characteristic to each form. This
paper then discusses usage trends and illustrates the proportions
of American cities operating under each form in selected years from
1950 to present.
Appendix I presents a thumbnail guide to the pros and cons of
each form. Appendix II offers brief case studies of some major
cities that have, in recent years, changed their form of
government; these case studies look at the reasons behind the
decision to adopt a different form. Finally, a bibliography of
sources for further reading is provided.
FORMS OF LOCAL GOVERNANCE
MAYOR -COUNCIL FORM OF GOVERNMENT
The use of the mayor -council form of government was imported from
England during the colonial period. At that time, the colonial
council was all powerful and the mayor was appointed by the
colonial governor. The functions of city government were few and
the citizens of the newly -formed states, having overthrown the
British king, were afraid to give powers to a single executive.
The popular feeling prevailed that an official with few powers
could do relatively little damage.
Under this "weak mayor" form, the mayor's administrative
powers were very limited in proportion to the powers of the
council, especially in the areas of budget -making and the
appointment and removal of subordinate officers and employees;
the mayor was chief executive in name only.
As time passed, American city government underwent many
changes: general control over cities became the responsibility of
state legislatures; popular election of city councils was
established, though with a restricted electorate; and bicameral
councils became a common characteristic of city government that
continued into the 20th century. During this time, the mayor was
not an independent official elected by the people, but rather he
was selected by the council for a one-year term of largely
ceremonial duties.
In 1797, Baltimore, Maryland, became the first major city to
give its mayor the power to veto council ordinances. In 1822,
Boston, Massachusetts, adopted direct election of the mayor by the
people. In 1830, New York's mayor received an absolute veto power.
By 1850, the mayor had become the chief administrative officer in
many American municipalities. Despite these tendencies to
strengthen the mayor, 19th century local government was dominated
by the council and the weak mayor form of government was the almost
universal system of local government in the United States.
Weak Mayor Form of Government
Characteristics
The weak mayor form of government is characterized by a
powerful, relatively large council which carries out administrative
functions such as budget preparation, makes all major appointments,
and approves the hiring and dismissal of lower level employees.
Under this form, there are many council committees, administrative
boards, and commissions which exist and operate with considerable
independence of the regular city government. These boards are
generally created either to remove a particular municipal function
from the political setting or because there is little confidence
that city government can administer the service in a business -like
way.
In addition to the position of mayor, there are many elective
offices, including some department heads. The mayor has very
restricted powers: limited or no veto power, limited or no
appointment and removal power, and no important administrative
functions.
Advantages and Disadvantages
Those favoring the weak mayor form argue that this is the
original approach to municipal government and that there is a long
historical tradition and much experience upon which to build. It
has worked well in many small communities, particularly in rural
areas. Proponents conclude that this form's representative
council, with maximum authority, has a real potential to meet the
needs of its constituents. The City of Minneapolis is an example
of the weak mayor form of municipal government.
Opponents of the weak mayor form argue that under this plan
responsibility, as well as power, are diffused. There is a lack of
strong leadership, and the form makes no provision for professional
administration. Particularly in larger cities, the political
vaccuum caused by adherence to this form invites "machine"
politics, and various types of political manipulation. Cooperative
working agreements are of great importance in the weak mayor form
of government; if these informal agreements break down, the local
government is unable to accomplish its tasks.
Strong Mayor Form of Government
In the latter part of the 19th century, larger American cities
sought to simplify their organizational structure, to strengthen
the office of the mayor, and to eliminate some or all of the
separately elected municipal officials. Thus, the "strong mayor"
form of municipal government emerged.
In 1880, the city of Brooklyn, New York, adopted the strong
mayor form, and in 1898, New York City followed. The citizens of
large cities looked to embrace a strong and honest administration.
The strong mayor, a responsible leader politically accountable to
all the people, could act in many cases as a foil to the "machine."
Characteristics
The strong mayor plan takes the executive power away from the
council and vests it in the mayor. It rejects the widespread
scattering of administrative responsibilities, provides for an
executive budget, and enables the mayor to assume direction of an
integrated and administrative structure. The strong mayor does not
hold membership in the council but does exercise veto power over
council actions. As chief executive of the city, the strong mayor
is granted authority to appoint and to remove department heads and
other officials. The city council is charged with legislative
functions and the plethora of boards and commissions found under
the weak mayor form is often absent in the strong mayor structure.
Advantages and Disadvantages
Proponents of the strong mayor form contend that it provides
strong political and administrative leadership for the city. It
does away with the broad division of responsibilities which is one
perceived defect of the weak mayor system. The strong mayor has
both the responsibility for running the city and the authority
necessary to carry out this task. Policy formulation and
implementation are often facilitated by this form. The council,
relieved of day-to-day administrative tasks, can focus on the major
public needs of the city.
Opponents of the strong mayor plan contend that one person is
handling both political and administrative functions and that there
is no assurance that the mayor will have professional
administrative capabilities. Many cities, particularly larger
ones, have overcome this argument by permitting the mayor to
appoint a professional administrator. The mayor remains the center
of government leadership and public responsibility.
COUNCIL-MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT
The council-manager plan traces its roots to Staunton,
Virginia where, in 1908, the bicameral city council enacted an
ordinance creating the office of "general manager." Dayton, Ohio
was the first relatively large city to put the manager form into
operation; In 1914, a commission -manager form was installed to
help the city cope with damages caused by a major flood. In the
20th century, the council-manager form of municipal government has
been the fastest growing form.
Characteristics
The council-manager form is similar in structure to a private
corporation, with the voters, council, and manager being
organizationally similar to the stockholders, board of directors,
and corporate general manager. There are few elective
officers --usually only the council --with the mayor generally
selected by and from the council to serve as a titular and
ceremonial leader and to preside at council meetings. The
policy -making legislative body is the council. The manager is a
full-time professional executive charged with the administration of
municipal affairs, appointed by, responsible to, and subject to
dismissal by the council. The manager's tenure is based solely on
performance.
Advantages and Disadvantages
Proponents of the council-manager plan point out that the
presence of a professional manager in charge of the city allows the
city to be run in a businesslike way. As the people's
representatives, the council retains control of policy.
Opponents of the plan cite the lack of strong, effective
political leadership, that the manager is not directly accountable
to the electorate, who have only indirect control over their
council -appointed administrator. They argue that the manager may
be only a transitory stranger in charge of municipal affairs, using
the city only as a rung on his career ladder.
COMMISSION FORM OF GOVERNMENT
Between 1870 and 1891, several southern cities, such as New
Orleans, Louisiana, and Mobile, Alabama, had a commission form of
government, but subsequently abandoned it. In 1901, Galveston,
Texas adopted the commission form with three commissioners to be
appointed by the governor and two to be elected by the voters.
Within three years, all five commissioners' positions were made
elective by judicial decision. Galveston's successful rebuilding
of its hurricane -devastated city under this new form led to its
adoption in Des Moines, Iowa in 1907. Innovations were added,
resulting in what became known as the Des Moines Plan, a commission
form of government plus the initiative, referendum, recall
petitions, non -partisan election, and civil service merit system.
Characteristics
Commission government provides for the election of a small
number of commissioners (typically 3, 5 or 7) who hold all
legislative and executive powers of city government. Collectively,
sitting as a single body, the commissioners perform the duties of
the city council --pass resolutions, enact ordinances, levy taxes,
and appropriate funds. Individually, each commissioner is the
administrative head of a major city department, such as public
works, police, fire, health, or finance. Each city activity is
thus under the authority of only one commissioner.
In its role as city council, the commission is presided over
by one of its members who is usually titled as mayor. The mayor
may be elected directly by the people or selected by the
commission. The mayor has no power of veto and no administrative
powers beyond the city department which he oversees.
This form of municipal government is currently in decline. A
number of cities, including Birmingham, Alabama, Topeka, Kansas and
Tulsa, Oklahoma, have all recently changed their city charters to
adopt the Mayor -Council form of government.
Advantages and Disadvantages
Proponents of the commission form of municipal government
point out that historically this plan has worked extremely well in
emergency situations and that city government is simplified by the
centralization of power and authority. Commission government gives
to a few people the power and authority to run city government,
avoiding possible abuses inherent in giving all powers to one
person. The Commission plan usually includes methods for direct
public intervention in government --initiative, referendum, and
recall.
Opponents of the plan point out that there is both too much
and too little centralization: too much in placing both the
legislative and administrative powers in the same hands, and too
little because the whole city administration is neatly divided into
a part for each commissioner. Opponents also cite a lack of
effective leadership, with no one having overall administrative
responsibility and the difficulty of selecting a person who is
qualified to both represent the voter's interests on the city
council and be a competent professional administrator to head up a
city government department.
TOWN MEETING
The town meeting form of government, almost exclusively found
in the New England states, is a form of local government that also
has its roots in colonial America. It is the pure form of direct
democracy, as every voter in the community has the opportunity to
participate in the law -making process by expressing his or her own
views, trying to convince other citizens, and voting on public
matters.
In New England, the town is the principal kind of rural or
noncity government. The town is an area of government that
includes whatever villages there may be, plus the open country.
Except where a municipality has been incorporated, the town
performs most of the functions a county does elsewhere.
As the population of a community increases, a modification of
this form may be instituted. Known as the Representative Town
Meeting, this newer plan features town voters choosing a number of
citizens (usually one hundred or more) to represent them at
meetings. Any voter may still attend and participate in the
discussions, but only the representatives may vote. In localities
operating under the Representative Town Meeting, selectmen and
other officers also are elected to supervise the administration of
the local laws.
Characteristics
Town meeting assemblies usually choose a board of selectmen,
generally consisting of three to five members, who carry on the
business of the town between meetings, have charge of town
property, grant licenses, supervise other town officials, and call
special town meetings. A town clerk, treasurer, assessor,
constable, school board, and other officers are elected by the
voters or appointed by the selectmen. The town meeting
participants often elect a finance committee to prepare the town
budget.
Town meetings, both regular and special, must be preceded by a
warrant, an official document that gives notice of the date, time,
and location of the meeting, specifies the items to be discussed at
the meeting, and authorizes the meeting. The preparation and issue
of the warrant is primarily a duty of the selectmen.
Advantages and Disadvantages
Proponents of the town meeting form of government point out
that this structure represents a pure form of democracy, in that
all registered voters may participate fully in any meeting.
Outside of the structure for annual meetings, the town meeting form
of organization resembles the Weak Mayor -Council form, except there
is no mayor, only a president of the council, and no one has veto
power. More and more commonly, the selectmen choose a manager and
assign routine administrative tasks to him/her.
There are also some difficulties with this form of government.
It is difficult for the town government to do much long-range
planning, meeting attendance is often very low because citizens
cannot or will not spend the time (often more than a day) that the
meeting occupies. It is also difficult to ensure that citizens
understand the complex issues and have sufficient background to
vote responsibly on issues placed before them. Preparation of the
warrant announcing the meeting can become a laborious task,
especially regarding the budget: each line item of the budget
becomes a separate article of business on the agenda.
Despite these difficulties, town meeting is still a viable
form of local government in many municipalities. Some have
overcome the challenges of this form by appointing a town manager
or an administrative assistant to handle day-to-day operations of
their communities.
TRENDS IN FORM USAGE
The form of municipal government utilized by a locality is a
tool; it makes a difference as to how a community is governed and
as to which groups and interests in the municipality are most
influential. Local cultural circumstances help determine the type
of structure that is utilized and how the form is modified to fit
the local situation. For these reasons, there is no one form of
government that is appropriate to all municipalities.
In the 23 very large cities with populations of 500,000 or
more (based on 1986 Bureau of the Census estimates), nineteen have
Mayor -Council form of government, while the remaining four have
Council -Manager government. Among all 182 cities with a population
of 100,000 or more, 77 (42.3%) are organized under the Mayor -
Council form, 102 (56.0%) employ the Council -Manager form, and only
three (1.6%) use the Commission form. None of these cities has a
Town Meeting form of government.
The following chart lists those cities over 100,000 with their
1986 populations, their present form of government, and their rank
order by population.
APPENDIX I
SUMMARY OF ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
OF EACH FORM OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT
ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES
o Long historical tradition
o Elected representative
council to meet con-
stituents' needs
o Has worked well in small
and rural localities
o Strong leadership with
centralized responsibility
o Facilitates policy formu-
lation and implementation
Weak Mayor
Strong
o Power and responsibility
diffused
o Lack of strong leadership
o Political vaccuum may lead
to "bossism" and "machine"
politics
Mayor
o Too much responsibility
for one person
o Mayor may not be a
professional administrator
Council -Manager
o Professional manager in charge
of managing city
o Council retains policy control
o City run in business -like manner
o Has worked well in emergency
situations
o Sinple organizational
structure
o Swift direct implementation
of policy
o No strong, effective
political leadership
o Tendency for manager to
usurp policy functions
o Manager may be a stranger
to the city, seeking only
to advance his/her career
Commission
o Legislative and policy
functions held by one body
o No checks and balances
o No one person with overall
administrative responsibility
o Difficult to elect legislators
with administrative abilities
Town Meeting/Representative Town Meeting
o "Purest" form of democracy
o Allows all voters a say in
how town is run
o Deep historical tradition
o Has worked well in small
localities
o Difficult to do long-range
planning
o Challenging to educate all
citizens adequately
o Preparing warrant may be
cumbersome process
o Annual meetings often poorly
attended
APPENDIX II
CASE STUDY; KANSAS CITY, KANSAS
FROM COMMISSION FORM TO COUNCIL-MANAGER FORM
Kansas City, Kansas, voters adopted a new charter in August,
1982, that replaced the Commission form of government with the
Council -Manager form. Citizen interest in changing to a new form
surfaced in 1979 when the Chamber of Commerce, the League of Women
Voters and the Jaycees stressed the need for better government.
This led the then -mayor to promise citizens an opportunity to
indicate whether they favored a change. The three -member city
commission placed the question on the November, 1980 ballot. By a
vote of 20,452 "yes" and 12,684 "no," the citizens indicated their
preference for change.
The city commission created a 15-member Commission on the Form
of Government to recommend the best alternative by the end of the
year. The group held 35 regular public meetings, sponsored three
public forums attended by nearly 400 citizens, made talks at
meetings of 112 civic and other groups attended by nearly 2,700
citizens, visited with officials in 10 cities, and issued 30 brief
research reports on the structure of government in the 97 U.S.
cities with populations of 100,000 to 200,000. The work was widely
publicized by the three leading metro area newspapers.
The Commission discussed the features of government structure
that would meet the needs and desires of the people. A
questionnaire listing 10 features was answered by about 2,300
citizens who attended meetings or responded to an opinion poll.
The features preferred by a majority of citizens were put together;
the result was the council-manager form of government.
The study commission readily agreed on a mayor elected at
large and six council members elected for four-year overlapping
terms. Several discussion sessions were devoted to the role of the
mayor and the method of electing council memnbers. The commission
recommended the nomination of councilmembers by district and
election at large. Residence in districts is required. The two
candidates receiving the most votes at the primary election in each
district are to be placed on the feneral election ballot with all
voters in the city participating in electing the single member from
each district.
The Commission on the Form of Government, whose work was
essentially completed by the end of 1981, was not dissolved until
the August 3, 1982 election. In the intervening period, study
commission members accepted speaking invitation from many citizen
groups to educate the public about the proposed new form. The
Chamber of Commerce formed a broad -based community organization,
the Civic Coalition, to work for the adoption of the proposed
charter. Despite the work of a battery of volunteers who
telephoned registered voters to urge them to vote, only 31 percent
of the registered voters went to the polls. The new charter was
adopted by a vote of 10,897 to 10,618.
CASE STUDY: ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO
FROM COUNCIL-MANAGER FORM TO MAYOR -COUNCIL FORM
Albuquerque, New Mexico, amended its city charter in February,
1974, to replace a five -member at -large city council and city
manager with a strong full-time mayor and a nine -member districted
city council.
The decision to restructure Albuquerque's city government came
after several years of study, public hearings, and widespread
publicity and previous attempts to change the form of government,
in 1971 and 1973, had failed. One of the contributing factors to
the success of the 1974 passage was the performance of the city
council, where power had shifted as ill-defined coalitions had
formed and dissolved. The council unanimously decided to recommend
a mayor -council form of government in response to severe public
criticism of a dramatic shift of power that resulted in the
dismissal of a popular city manager. The dismissal was based in
large part on differing views of the city manager's proper
function, especially in policy -making. That difficulty, of course,
can be resolved by having an electred, paid, full-time mayor as the
city's chief executive.
This controversy had been linked to specific issue areas,
especially growth and planning. Albuquerque had grown dramatically
since the early 1950s and many citizens feared the loss of
aesthetic quality if the rapid growth continued. With the
assistance of the Albuquerque Urban Observatory, five separate
charter amendments were proposed instead of one package change.
Propositions 1 and 2 (which passed overwhelmingly) establish,
respectively, a Code of Ethics for city officials and an Election
Code to regulate campaign contributions and expenditures in city
elections. The key proposition, number 3, passed three to one; it
provides for a strong mayor and a nine -member council elected by
districts. Councillors are elected for four-year terms, half every
two years. The mayor, elected city-wide for a four-year term, is
limited to two consecutive terms. Election as mayor or councillor
is by plurality, except that if no one receives 40 percent of the
vote, there is a runoff.
Proposition 4, which was defeated, provided for four at -large
city councillors and would have become effective only if
Proposition 3 passed as well. This proposition had been added to
offset fears that councillors elected by districts would not be
sufficiently attuned to the welfare of the city as a whole. Its
defeat was attributed to public feeling that the existing council
had been too sensitive to special interests and the salary expense
of additional councillors was a needless one. Proposition 5, which
was also defeated, would have made city elections partisan rather
than nonpartisan. Its defeat was caused by a combination of
district of "policits" in city affairs, some feeling that
nonpartisan elections would keep Watergate -type activities out of
Albuquerque, and a fear of bossism and an urban "machine."
Although only 21 percent of the registered voters turned out
to express their opinion on the new form of government, 79 percent
voted "yes." The reasons for supporting the mayor -council plan
fell largely under three interrelated categories. Respondents
commented that under the council-manager structure, they did not
know to whom to go with a problem and, more generally, did not know
who was accountable for the existing problems in city government.
Second, many people felt that the city had grown too large to be
governed by the council-manager form of government. They felt that
council-manager systems are acceptable for small towns but that
Albuquerque now needed a full-time mayor. Third, many people
expressed a general preference for the mayor -council form because
they had lived in such a city before moving to Albuquerque and
liked that structure of government.
Council -Manager
Government:
Positive Alternative
to Separation of Powers
Chester A. Newland
Professor of Public Administration
University of Southern California
C
OUNCIL-MANAGER GOVERNMENT
contrasts positively wiah America's frag-
mented, separation -of -powers governments
in three respects, which warrant greater at-
tention. These crucial differences are:
• Ultimate authority is placed in the
popularly elected council, in a parlia-
mentary -like, shared -powers system.
• Greater civic, political, and career exper-
tise and professionalism are encouraged
and practiced.
• More coordinated, systems -oriented
responsiveness occurs.
THF-SE DISTINCTIVE FEATURES NEED
to be highlighted by leaders of council-
manager governments. In today's leader-
ship efforts, the following points also need
to be considered:
• Alternatives to council-manager govern-
ment have performed comparatively less
well in the past 25 years.
• Essential governmental continuity re-
quires sensitivity to the present, disciplined
by past experience and respect for the fu-
ture.
• Basic values that underlie council-man-
ager government must be both practiced
and articulated.
Separation -of -Powers Problems
Governments in the United States at every level —
national, state, and local —have experienced grave
problems under the peculiar separation -of -powers
system that grew out of American Colonial and Revolu-
tionary era circumstances. These fragmented systems
Public Management/July 1985
have suffered increased difficulties in the past 25 years
as single -interest advocacy and narrow partisanship
have intensified in American politics.
Sustained conflicts have often characterized legisla-
tive/executive relationships, as in Chicago in the 1980s
and in Cleveland in the late 1970s and nationally in the
Nixon, Carter, and Reagan administrations. Executive
transitions have often neared disaster, as in 1861 and
the outbreak of civil war; 1933 and the bank closings
and related crises, and 1961 and the Bay of Pigs. Some
transitions of mayors in Boston, Chicago, and many
other- large and small cities have also been disruptive,
while in other cases entrenched, executive -dominated
machines have postponed problems by foreclosing
leadership changes For extended periods.
Amateurism and spoils increasingly characterize
many such fragmented governments in the 1980s, as
they did prior to the reform movements that gave birth
to council-manager government. This return to parti-
san administration and politicization of personnel
systems limits the capacity of governments to respond
to even ordinary expectations, such as balanced bud-
gets, energetic and informed cash management, timely
handling of accounts, reliable contract standards and
compliance, and economical, efficient, and effective
public services. When a new chief executive is elected,
in all too many cases, most departmental managers and
other top administrators are changed, often in favor of
inexperienced and uninformed partisans. That is how
the National Academy of Public Administration, in the
book Ainericcr's Unelected Government, has character-
ized current practice in the national government.
Parliamentary -like Shared Authority
For over 70 years, one dominant thrust of public ad-
ministration has been in support of enhanced executive
power as the solution to governmental problems. Es-
sentially, two contrasting approaches have been
followed to accomplish that purpose. In separation -of -
powers systems, power of the executive has been
increased at the expense of legislative and private au-
thority, and a conflict model of executive/legislative
relationships has increasingly dominated such govern-
ments. By contrast, in council-manager governments,
final authority has been concentrated in the popularly
elected legislative body, with the executive directly
responsible to the council. This facilitates institutional-
ized arrangements in which enhanced executive power
serves the public under close supervision by the legisla-
7
Live body. Somewhat like a parliament, the council may
promptly change top executive leadership at nearly any
time to maintain ultimate responsibility. In this system,
executive authority can safely be great, because limits
on the executive are even larger, and they may be exer-
cised swiftly and decisively.
Individual councilmembers and the council as a
whole have considerable authority in this framework.
In a mayor -council system, by contrast, authority of
councilmembers is greatly diminished in favor of the
elected chief executive. Typically, partisan machinery is
also essential to that system as a vehicle to exert re-
maining legislative power vis-a-vis the executive. Thus,
authority of individual councilmembers is further di-
minished.
Civic, Political, and Career Expertise
and Professionalism
Council-manager government originated in reform
movements that were devoted to facilitating effective
and efficient citizenship —se!/ -governance. The initial
focus was on civic excellence, not the public executive.
The search was for whatever governmental form would
best serve the public. A principal result of that reform
era search was the Lockport Plan, the municipal re-
search movement's solution to the nearly unworkable
complexities of the American system of separation of
powers.
Strong mayor forms were first favored by municipal
reformers, but the resulting fragmentation and conflicts
soon turned their search to the commission form. That
framework was deliberately patterned after a par-
liamentary concentration of powers in a popular
assembly. The absence of expertise and focus there
quickly led reformers to the model of council -manager -
government, with a functionally hierarchical executive
system.
What is important in this evolution and the resulting
conceptualization are the ordered priorities:
1. Citizen effectiveness
2. Popularly based council authority
3. Responsible executive expertise and professionalism
Subordinated to the council, the hierarchical executive
system is to provide informed coordination of varied
expertise, not centralization of activity in a partisan
executive structure.
By contrast, when the strong executive model was in-
troduced into the national government by New Deal
and other reformers, congressional authority was in-
creasingly denigrated in favor of enhanced presidential
power The earlier understanding of the separation -of -
powers system as one of shared functions and authority
soon gave way to frequent executive/legislative con-
flict. An orientation grew among academic political
scientists and some public administrators in favor of
executive enhancement at the expense of citizen in-
volvement and legislative authority.
The differences between these two conceptions of
the strong executive are crucial, although they are of
ten ignored by advocates of strong executive power in
separation -of -powers systems. Leaders in council-man-
ager governments need to stress that this governance
plan did not begin with the principal emphasis on the
8
executive. From the start, the focus has been on shared
expertise and professionalism among citizens, civic
leaders, politicians, and careerists. In this system, civic
duty and public service are interdependent. These pri-
orities contrast sharply with the increasingly partisan,
executive domination of governments under separa-
tion -of -powers systems.
Coordinated, Systems -Oriented
Responsiveness
A third positive difference between the council-man-
ager framework and executive -dominated separation of
powers is in how they facilitate coordinated, systems -
wide responsiveness to problems and opportunities.
Following the accentuation of single -interest advo-
cacy and narrow partisanship since the first of the
1960s, both legislative and executive branches of sepa-
ration -of -powers governments have been increasingly
plagued by factionalism. Thus, their fragmentation has
increased. At the national level, the result was de-
scribed in the mid-1970s by Hugh Heclo as A Govern-
ment of Strangers. The same condition is frequently
present in local governments. Elected mayors and fac-
tionally divided councils are often compelled to staff
spoils -dominated systems with representatives of com-
peting political factions. As a result, the institutional
quality of government is increasingly diminished. Frag-
mented, narrow interests come to control separate turfs.
Council-manager government is not immune to these
pressures. In the past 25 years, however, it has demon-
strated great capacity to broker competing interests
within the institutionalized, powerful council that char-
acterizes this governmental form. Often, that brokerage
has been with blood, sweat, and tears. Also, nearly al-
ways, success has depended greatly on the presence of
a coordinated executive capacity to facilitate prompt,
uncomplicated responsiveness to both varied and com-
mon public interests.
The great strength of council-manager government
has been precisely in the combined presence of those
two qualities: a powerful council, oriented to com-
munity brokerage, and a coordinated executive
framework, characterized by diverse expertise and pro-
fessionalism and free of narrow factionalism. The past
25 years have been stressful for nearly all governments.
But, if compared with the alternatives, council-man-
ager governments have generally demonstrated far
greater strengths to provide coordinated public ser-
vices in difficult times.
Comparative Council -Manager Merits
One point needs to be made most clearly today:
Council-manager governments have generally outper-
formed others during the past 25 years. The grass in
those other fields is definitely not greener, and often
the green that is there is grass of a different kind. Con-
fronted by intensified factionalism and partisanship
since the early 1960s, local governments have had
great pressures exerted on them to embrace more frag-
mented frameworks. Experience in alternative
separation -of -powers systems, however; is that frag-
menting pressures are further intensified in them,
reducing broad community consciousness and civic
identification. The negative results of that factionalism
and narrow partisanship are most evident in the persis-
Public Management/July 1985
tently massive deficits, fragmented and conflicting
policies, and serious institutional decline of the na-
tional government in recent years. But while less
evident and awesome, similar failures are often evident
in state and local governments that are fragmented ac-
cording to similar principles.
A second point that today's leaders of council-man-
ager governments need to stress is the need for
sensitivity to the present, disciplined by past experience
and respect for the future. In 1984, we celebrated
ICiMA's 70th anniversary. Those decades have been in-
structive, Professional managers and the councils they
serve have learned that it is essential to manage from
the future to be responsible today. More clearly, water
and sanitation systems require long-term policies and
administration. Human services do also. The extreme
discontinuities associated with separation -of -powers
systems are, quite simply, inconsistent with such gov-
ernmental realities. Council-manager governments
experience great difficulties also, but they have demon-
strated far greater time perspective than alternative
forms of government. This steadying feature of council-
manager governments merits greater attention.
A third point that warrants highlighting needs to be
made by example. Today's leaders must practice and
articulate the fundamentals that underlie council-
manager government. Most basically, those are the
underlying values of constitutional democracy: human
dignity and rule of law/reasonableness. The council-
manager system best facilitates those values through
the framework already noted:
• The highest priority is citizen effectiveness, based on
values of self -governance.
• Subordinate to that is the council, with focused au-
thority.
• Subordinate to that is the governmental administra-
tion, coordinated by expert, professional management.
That is the tested formula of responsible council-
manager government. It has proved to be exceptionally
effective, especially compared with alternatives during
the past 25 years. That success and its foundations war-
rant wider understanding.
ROMANCING
the Plan
Robert B. Denhardt, Research
Professor of Public Administration
University of Missouri -Columbia
FOR WELL OVER HALF A CENTURY, URBAN
managers in this country have had a special
affection, even a reverence, for the council-
manager form of government. "The Plan," as
it is called, has provided a rallying point for the profes-
sion. It is recommended, promoted, defended, and
protected from threats. Even though individual local
government managers come and go, they are com-
forted when The Plan remains.
There are many reasons urban managers have had
such respect for it. One of the more obvious was re-
cently stated by a student of mine, who responded to
an exam question about the significance of the council-
manager form of government by writing: "It's
important because our graduate teaching assistant
wants to be a city manager someday and without this
form of government, he couldn't be one!"
More seriously, urban managers have often recom-
mended the council-manager form of government for
local communities —and their reasons have not been
simply self-serving. They feel, with good justification,
that The Plan provides a workable allocation of govern-
mental responsibilities, a balancing of politics and
administration, and, most important, a degree of pro-
fessionalism in local government.
This Iasi point cannot be overemphasized: The Plan
has been one of the primary instruments through
which professional management has been brought to
local government. Moreover, the image of the manager
Public rNlanagement/July 1985
as a trained professional has provided a model for ur-
ban management in all its variations. It is primarily for
this reason, I would say, that urban managers speak of
this governmental form with such respect and honor.
Against this background, discussions of the contin-
ued viability of it are especially interesting. A lowered
rate of new adoptions, and recent abandonments in
some well-known cities, have raised questions about
the future of The Plan. Many managers now wonder
whether the public feels it has outlived its usefulness.
I think not, though it does seem that we have
become more mature in recognizing that council-man-
ager government works better in certain kinds of cities
than in others. What is more important, however, is
that whatever happens to The Plan in the coming de-
cades, a momentum for the professionalization of local
government has now been established and seenis likely
to continue, Plan or not.
The evidence on this point is overwhelming. Vari-
ations in the form of local government are now
appearing, yet a concern for professional management
appears time and again. In Missouri, for example, while
new adoptions of The Plan have been few, there has
been a tremendous growth in city administrator ar-
rangements, especially in smaller communities.
Similarly, other local governments, most notably coun-
ties, are now seeking ways of bringing professional
expertise to bear on local problems. The move toward
professionalism cannot be denied.
I would say, therefore, that The Plan is alive and well
in American communities, but, more importantly, pro-
fessionalism in local government is flourishing as never
before. Urban managers, who have supported The Plan
as a vehicle for increased professionalism in local gov-
ernment, should now celebrate the fact that The Plan,
as well as their own distinctive performance under it,
has led to such a concern for professionalism.
Whatever the future of The Plan might be, and what-
ever fluctuations might appear from time to time, the
profession of urban management in this country is
growing and expanding in important new directions. In
this, The Plan and its supporters have served well.
9