Excerpts from: Taking Stock of the Council-Manager Form at 100
by James H. Svara and Kimberly L. Nelson
In 1908, a single city adopted what would eventually become the council- manager form of government. In 2008, more than 3,500 cities with populations exceeding 2,500 persons and more than 370 counties use the form. Beyond the direct effect of introducing a new structural option for the organization of local government, this new form also elevated the option of appointing a centrally located generalist administrator in other forms of government. Almost half of mayor-council governments and more than half of the commission and town meeting governments have a chief administrative officer (CAO) or city administrator, and such a position is often found in elected county executive governments as well.
Figure 1. Use of Major Forms of Government and Change, 1990–2007.
| All U.S. cities over 2,500 in population | 1990 | 2007 | Change | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % (number) | % (number) | % (number) | Cities smaller than 10,000 | Cities larger than 10,000 | |
| Mayor-council | 54.5% (3,645) | 43.5% (3,131) | -14.1% (-514) | -515 | 1 |
| Council-manager | 36.2% (2,420) | 48.9% (3,520) | 45.5% (1,100) | 574 | 526 |
| Other | 9.2% (617) | 7.5% (543) | -12.0% (-74) | -47 | -27 |
| Total | 100.0% (6,682) | 100.0% (7,194) | 7.7% (512) | ||
Differences in Local Government Forms
There are three major features that differentiate the mayor-council and council-manager forms of government, and all three can be traced back to the origins of the form. Analogous to the distinction between presidential and parliamentary systems, the first feature is the allocation of authority.
The council-manager form places all governmental authority in the hands of the council, with certain functions assigned by law, charter, or convention to the manager appointed by the council. Authority is unified in the collective leadership body of the council. To the early reformers citing the practice of English local government, eliminating separation of powers and strengthening the council was as important to the council-manager form as the creation of the manager’s position.3
The relationship between the council and the manager is based on this allocation of authority. Despite all the words that have been written and spoken about the separation of politics and policy from the administration, the unique feature of the council-manager form is the interaction of councilmembers and administrators in both policy and administration. As intended by drafters of the model city charter in 1915, the form ensures that a professional perspective will be presented to the council by the manager on all policy decisions and that council oversight can be directed to any administrative action.
With separation of powers, the mayor can limit the policy advice given to the council and can shield staff from council oversight.4 In the mayor-council form, mayors can also have a substantial impact on the amount and quality of professional advice they receive and share with the council and on the level of professionalism that is present in the administrative organization. In contrast with the council-manager form in which the council has authority over the manager, the mayor in the mayor-council form is a separate and independent executive.
The second feature that differentiates forms is how executive responsibilities are assigned to an elected or appointed administrator. In the council-manager form, executive functions are the responsibility of the city or county manager even if some functions on occasion are shared with other officials. In parliamentary-style local governments in northern Europe, the mayor or other top political figure commonly shares executive authority with the top administrator, but this administrator is still the chief executive officer.
In the mayor-council form, executive responsibilities are exercised under the authority of the mayor. A central coordinating administrative position can be created—a CAO—but in contrast with the clear delegation of executive authority to the city manager, the assignments to the CAO may be determined by the will of the executive mayor.5 In contrast, the council-manager form ensures the linkage of executive responsibilities with a professional top administrator.
When a top administrator is present in the local government form, the third distinguishing feature is whether the administrator is responsible to the entire council or to the mayor. Responsibility to the entire council is an essential characteristic of the council-manager form and helps to ensure both transparency and a focus on the public interest rather than the political interests of a single elected official.
Figure 2. Percentage of Cities Using the Council-Manager Form by Population Category, 1990 and 2007.
Studies show that when council-manager cities are compared with mayor-council cities the council-manager cities are more likely to have greater efficiency, sounder finances, and stronger management performance. They have greater representation of minority groups in staff positions. Council-manager cities are more likely to pursue long-term goals, use strategic planning, base service delivery on need and other professional standards, have ethics codes and boards, integrate management functions, and adopt innovative management practices.
