TEXT 1. PART 2: Mayor-Council vs. Council-Manager: two forms of self-government

Counter-Arguments

1. Efficiency and productivity

Opponents of the Mayor-Council system point out that efficiency and productivity in the city government may be compromised because those traits that make a person electable in no way guarantees that he or she will have the management skills to run a highly complex, administrative apparatus. They claim that a mayor who wants to stay in office or advance may pay more attention to winning elections than to the day-to­day mundane matters of administration. They also point out that some mayors are better trained than others in fulfilling their management obligations and that it is more likely in smaller cities that the mayor will come into office without much expertise or developed management skills. Opponents of the Mayor-Council form also worry that, once elected, a mayor may abuse the power inherent in their position of chief executive officer.

In response to these claims proponents of the Mayor-Council system say that the public arena of campaigning leaves the candidates, their views and their credentials, open for scrutiny and debate so that the voter is able to make an informed decision. Candidates in fact are deliberately open about their political views for it is the hope that their particular outlook will win the favor of the voter. It cannot be denied that it certainly would be advantageous for any mayor to have expertise and be skilled in management, still proponents of the Mayor-Council contend that direct election of an executive is a more important consideration when deciding which form of city government to embrace. In addition, they point out that the mayor could still appoint an administrative director who possessed the necessary budgeting skills.

2. Separation of Powers

Opponents of the Council-Manager system point out the fact that their system of government offers a clear separation of power. The mayor acts as chief executive officer and administrator while the city council is the legislative body. In this way authority is divided between the executive and the legislative bodies of government. This may be seen as a positive attribute keeping corruption and abuse of power at bay in the form of checks and balances.

Those in opposition to the Mayor-Council approach and in favor of a city manager generally look upon this division of power as a generator of gridlock and potential inertia in getting things accomplished. In the Council-Manager form, gridlock and conflict are kept to a minimum because the city council possesses all governmental authority, except as it delegates authority to the manager. The city manager is hired by the council and can be fired by the council and in all respects serves at the discretion of the city council and is not accountable to the voters. In this model then the council is the political element of the local government, providing policy guidelines, representation and accountability. Proponents state that the structure of the Council-Manager government promotes cooperative relationships among officials and eliminates the power struggles that account for potential gridlock.

3. Neutrality of City Manager

The city manager appointed by the council is to be the objective, neutral, professional administrator, overseeing the city bureaucracy and carrying out the council's programs competently and efficiently. Those in favor of a city manager claim that the neutrality and objectivity indicative of the city manager's position eliminates the bottleneck of conflicting and opposing ideologies in getting things done. The Council-Manager form of government from its beginning has been promoted as a model which separates policy and politics from administration. The manager's job is to administer not to govern; nor is it to seek to impress his or her values on the council. Like a corporation, the council, as the board of directors, directs the manager to implement council policy, efficiently dispatching administrative duties ad rendering services to the public.

Opponents of the Council-Manager system point out that city government is not a business nor is it a corporation. Because efficiency is prioritized over other values, critics argue that managers could show disregard for citizens and even council members who are not professionally trained. Opponents also point out that city managers, while enjoying the aura of purported neutrality, would not in practice be neutral but could implement their own political agenda. They also state that Council-Manager form of government works best in a homogenous population rather than a diverse population.

Date: 2015-01-12; view: 786