Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDon 12 01 04 Charter Review - M DRAFT THE ASHLAND CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE THE MAYOR-CITY MANAGER STRUCTURE, THE ROLES AND RELATIONSHIPS AND THE MAYORAL VETO POWER AND ABILITY TO VOTE ON COUNCIL ISSUES November 30, 2004 Prepared By Hal Bashaw Hal Cloer Donald Montgomery THE MAYOR-CITY MANAGER STRUCTURE, THE ROLES AND RELATIONSHIPS AND THE MAYORAL VETO POWER AND ABILITY TO VOTE ON COUNCIL ISSUES ? The Issues. The City of Ashland has, from it's inception, used a variation of the Strong Mayor form of government, involving a City Administrator with the responsibility for the general administrative coordination of all City departments (except Parks, Hospital and Library). At issue is whether this form of government remains viable for the City, or if another form of government will better serve the needs of the City now, and in the future. A companion issue pertains to the veto power of the mayor and the matter of the mayoral vote on council issues. At present the Ashland mayor may veto a council decision, and only votes in the event of a tie. Is this arrangement satisfactory and will it continue to be so in the future? Will a change in the form of the City government necessitate a change in the voting and veto powers of the mayor? ? Background. Over the past several decades, four basic forms of municipal/city government have evolved. Structurally, these forms are shown in Figures 1 and 2. These basic forms are the Weak Mayor Form, the Strong Mayor Form, a Council-Manager (Administrator) Form, and a Commission Form. There are hybrid forms (adaptive form) which may posses some of the characteristics of two or more of these basic forms. In the Weak Mayor Form, the mayor is the ceremonial head Of the city, and the presiding officer of the council. The mayor does not appoint administrative personnel, has no special administrative responsibility and has no power to veto ordinances adopted by the council. Most small cities in Oregon have this form of government. The other mayor-council form of government differs from the "weak mayor" form mainly by making the mayor the chief executive of the city. This is the Strong Mayor Form. The mayor has the power to appoint all or most administrative personnel of the city and has general responsibility for proper administration of the city. In addition, the mayor is the ceremonial head of the city and presides at council meetings, and usually has the power to veto ordinances adopted by the council. In the Council-Manager Form of government the council is the legislative and basic policy-making body of the city. The city manager is responsible for administration of the affairs of the city and appoints all other city administrative personnel. The manager serves at the pleasure of the council. The council may deal with administrative personnel only through the manager. A few cities have what may be characterized as a city administrator form of government. While this form resembles council-manager government, it differs from that form mainly in requiring city council approval of the administrator's appointment of other administrative personnel. Ashland remains one of the few cities in Oregon with populations over 10,000, with a version of this form of government. In the Commission form of government there is no separation of legislative from administrative powers. A board of three or five popularly elected commissioners is the legislative and basic policy-making body of the city, and each commissioner heads an administrative department of the city. Portland is the only city in Oregon with this form of government. This form is not appropriate for Ashland. The League of Oregon Cities Model Charter For Oregon Cities provides for the Council-Manager form of government. Under the Model Charter, all powers of the city are expressly vested in a city council consisting of six elected councilors and an elected mayor. The mayor presides over the council and has a right to vote on all matters before the council and is the political head of the city government. The mayor would have no administrative, executive or legislative power except as part of the council. Under the Model Charter, a city manager is appointed by the city council who is charged with the responsibility of carrying out all the powers and functions of city government and city enterprises, in accordance with policies set by the council, and by the provisions of ordinances and state law. The city manager has the authority necessary to accomplish the functions for which he/she has been charged by the council. The city manager may be terminated by the city council by a simple majority vote. As early as 1989 it was being written (1) that council-manager and strong mayor cities appeared to be converging. Moreover, there is a growing recognition that cities need strong political leadership wherever it can possibly be attained. Cities increasingly need both a strong mayor and professional management (2). A study by H. George Frederickson and Gary Alan Johnson asserts that "cities with mayor-council statutory platforms will incrementally adapt many of the characteristics of the council-manager form to improve their management and productivity capabilities. Over time, cities with council- 1 manager statutory platforms will adopt features of the mayor- council form to increase their political responsiveness, leadership, and accounting capabilities (3). And, on this view, MacManus & Bullock (4), writing in The Municipal Yearbook, 2003, of the ICMA, note that "Demographic, socioeconomic, and political changes in America's localities over the past several decades have prompted the restructuring of governance forms and processes in the search for broader representation, better responsiveness, and great accountability. The result has been a blurring of the traditional lines demarking various forms of government and the emergence of new ways of classifying mayor-council and council-manager forms of government. The "best practices" associated with one form have gradually been adopted by communities with another governance structure…" Under the present Ashland city charter, all powers of the city are vested in an elected mayor and a 6-member elected city council. To exercise the administrative (executive) power of the city, the city council is specifically authorized to appoint a city administrator. However, the charter also provides that the elected mayor is "the executive officer of the municipal corporation and shall exercise careful supervision over the general affairs of the city and over appointed officers"; and, further, "that the mayor may remove any appointive officer at any time". The city administrator thus must be responsible to the council for administration of the entire city, but lacks the authority to carry out that function - it is the mayor and council that have the sole authority to hire and fire department heads for which he/she will be responsible for their performance (5). ? The Pros. Present City Charter (Strong Mayor Form) - Has served Ashland for many years - is familiar to citizens. - Permits strong political leadership. - Mayor is the primary force in policy-making. Weak Mayor Form - Provides for effective citizen participation in government through council makeup and influence. Council-Manager Form - Provides for trained professional managers to oversee all city functions and operations, with hire and fire authority. - Provides for a unity of command for department heads and subordinate employees. - Allows relationships among officers to be cooperative rather than contentious since power is not divided among officers. - Stresses the contributions of all officers rather than focusing on the mayor as the driving force in city government. ? The Cons. Present Charter (Strong Mayor Form) - Professional city managers are reluctant to accept a position in a system in which the mayor and council have the sole authority to hire and fire department heads for which a manager is responsible for their performance. - Contains an ordinance which allows the mayor and council to bypass the administration and department heads to directly appoint and remove all subordinate employees - violates all the principles of good management in which there must be a rational chain of command. - Permits council members to do mischief within the city departments. - Assumes that all mayors will have the political and managerial strengths to provide continuous administrative stability in city functions. Weak Mayor Form - Requires mayor and council to establish a workable balance of power - may be difficult over a succession of mayors and council makeup. - Possible for mayor to lack strong political leadership. - Department heads must function in an environment lacking a unity of command. - Requires the council to be an effective policy-making body - which it typically is not. Council-Manager Form - May not facilitate or encourage strong political leadership. - May create powerful bureaucracies at the expense of political supremacy. - May obstruct political focus in the community. - May represent mainstream interests rather than minority interests. - May give too much power to the city manager and administrative staff. ? THE MAYORAL VETO POWER AND ABILITY TO VOTE ON COUNCIL ISSUES Some Background Information: The present Ashland charter provides for the mayor to have the authority to veto any ordinance, measure or resolution when passed by the council, and the council may over-ride the veto by a 2 two-thirds vote. However, a two-thirds vote consists of 4 or the 6 councilors, which is ordinarily the same number as the simple majority required to pass the ordinance in the first place. Consequently, an exercise of the mayoral veto is rare. League of Oregon Cities Model Charter For Oregon Cities provides for a mayor as a voting member of the council and having no veto authority. In a 2003 National survey of municipalities by the ICMA, it was determined that the mayors in 29% of the cities reporting had veto authority, and this authority was particularly common in cities with populations of 250,000 - 1,000,000. It was further found that most mayors in mayor-council cities (58%) have a veto as do mayors in 12% of council-manager cities. Where the mayor does have a veto, an over-ride almost always (90%) requires a supermajority. In the same survey, it was found that in a majority of the reporting cities (55%), the mayor can vote on all issues. However, only 23% of the mayor-council cities allow the mayor to vote on a full range of issues. Just over one third (35%) of the reporting cities restrict the mayor to a tie-breaker role - it is found most often among cities with populations below 10,000. But not allowing the mayor to vote at all is characteristic of larger, central cities with mayor-council forms of structure. ? Budget Implications. Minor, if any. ? Summary. Three forms of municipal government have been examined. These include the Strong Mayor form (the form provided by the current Ashland City charter), the Weak Mayor form and the Council-Manager form. Based on the League of Oregon Cities Model Charter For Oregon Cities, the Council-Manager form is preferred. Interviews with a former city administrator, a former city attorney, and the current mayor have strongly indicated that the present Strong Mayor form in Ashland is not satisfactory due to diminished authority of the city administrator. Each of these individuals have recommended a change in the city government to accommodate a professional city manager. However, recent studies of municipal governments nationwide, reveal that adaptive forms of government are emerging. In these forms, the features of one form are blended with the features of another form to yield a hybrid form with characteristics better able to provide for a strong political force coupled with a professional management structure, while retaining provisions for citizen participation in city government. The question that remains is how should Ashland's charter provide for both a strong mayor and effective professional management? On the basis of a 2003 National survey of municipalities, it was determined that the majority of mayors in mayor-council have veto authority, where a council over-ride requires a supermajority. In the same National survey, it was found that in the majority of reporting cities, the mayor can vote on all issues. Just over a third of the reporting cities restrict the mayor to a tie-breaker role. ? References And Attachments. References: 1)Anderson, E.A. "Response to City Management at a Crossroads", Ideal and Practice in Council-Manager Government, ICMA, 1989. 2)Nalbandian, John, "Professionalism in Local Government: Transformation in the Roles, Responsibilities and the Values of City Managers" Jossey-Bass, 1991 3)Fredrick & Johnson, "The Adapted American City", 4)MacManus, Susan A., & C.C. Bullock, "The Form, Structure, and Composition of America's Municipalities in The New Millennium", The Municipal Yearbook, 2003, ICMA. Attachments: 1) Figures 1 and 2.