The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1996 10-23 CHCACity of Brooklyn Center is great place to start. A great place to stay. BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION OCTOBER 23, 1996 7 P.M. CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM B AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 25, 1996 4. CORRESPONDENCE A. Letter to Chief Judge Mabley regarding two vacancies B. Letter to SunPost Newspapers regarding advertising of vacancies C. Letter to SunPost Newspapers regarding tonight's meeting 5. OLD BUSINESS A. Joint Meeting of City Council/Charter Commission of September 30, 1996 1) Memo to Mayor and Council regarding Charter Revision to Chapter 6 of the City Charter a. Two research papers from League of Minnesota Cities 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Next meeting date 7. ADJOURNMENT PLEASE CONTACT CAROLE BLOWERS AT 560 -0421 IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND THE MEETING* 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 City Hall TDD Number (612) 569 -3300 Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number (612) 569 -3400 FAX (612) 569 -3494 An Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunities Employer City of Brooklyn Center A great place to start. A great place to stay. September 27,1996 Honorable Daniel H. Mabley C -12 Government Center Minneapolis, MN 55487 Dear Chief Judge Mabley: This letter is to advise you that I have received a letter of resignation from Brooklyn Center Charter Commission member Robert Mickelson (copy attached). I also wish to advise you that Commissioner Tony Kuefler has served since 1986, and he is unable to be reappointed. �il Thus, the Brooklyn Center Charter Commission has two vacancies at the present time. I have instructed the Administrative Assistant, Carole Blowers, to notify our local newspaper to publish an article regarding the two vacancies for a month. If you need any further information, please contact me at 566 -6423. Thank you. Sincerely, Tim Willson Chair BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION cb Attachment 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 City Hall TDD Number (612) 569 -3300 Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number (612) 569 -3400 FAX (612) 569 -3494 An Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunities Employer t City of Brooklyn Center A great place to start. A great place to stay. September 28, 1996 SunPost Newspapers 4080 West Broadway, Suite 113 Robbinsdale, MN 55422 ATTN: Editor Please publish the following information in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post for the next four weeks: The Brooklyn Center Charter Commission has vacancies. Persons applying must be a resident of Brooklyn Center and a registered voter. This is an important voluntary position of civic particiipati ®n. Anyone interested should contact the City of Brooklyn Center at 569 -3300 to leave your name, address /phone number so you may be contacted on how to apply for this commission. All interested parties should call the Brooklyn Center City Hall at 569 -3300. If you have any questions, please contact me at 560 -0421. Thank you. Sincerely, J Carole J. Blo ers Administrat' a Assistant BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION FAXED TO: 536 -7519 6301 Shingle Cieek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 City Hall TDD Number (612) 569 -3300 Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number (612) 569 -3400 FAX (612) 569 -3494 An Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunities Employer City of Brooklyn Center A great place to start. A great place to stay. October 15, 1996 SunPost Newspapers 4080 W. Broadway, Suite 113 Robbinsdale, MN 55422 RE: Notice of Charter Commission Meeting Dear Sir or Madam: This is to notify you that the Brooklyn Center Charter Commission will be holding a meeting on Wednesday, October 23, at 7 P.M. at City Hall. Sincerely, Carole I. Blowersi`� Administrative Assistant CHARTER COMMISSION CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FAXED TO: 536 -7519 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 City Hall TDD Number (612) 569 -3300 Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number (612) 569 -3400 FAX (612) 569 -3494 An Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunities Employer City of Brooklyn Center A great place to start. A great place to stay. BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION TO: Mayor Kragness Councilmember Kathleen Carmody Councilmember Kristin Mann Councilmember Debra Hilstrom Councilmember Charles Nichols, Sr. FROM: Tim Willson f Chair, Charter Commission DATE: September 29, 1996 RE: Charter Revision to Chapter 6, Administration of City Affairs, of the City Charter At the September 25, 1996, Charter Commission meeting, the Charter Commission voted to amend Chapter 6, Section 6.02, Subdivision 3(a) of the City Charter. The Commissioners voted to remove the last sentence in that subdivision which read, "Appointment and removal of department heads shall be made final only upon majority vote of the Council." The reasoning for deleting this sentence was to allow the power of appointing and removing department heads to be with the City Manager alone, without majority vote approval by the Council making those kinds of decisions final. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 410.12, Subdivision 7, the Brooklyn Center Charter Commission recommends the adoption, by ordinance, of the attached proposed ordinance This item should be placed on the City Council agenda as soon as possible. If you have any questions, please contact me. cb Attachments 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 City Hall TDD Number (612) 569 -3300 Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number (612) 569 -3400 FAX (612) 569 -3494 An Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunities Employer Section 5.09. INITIATION OF CHARTER AMENDMENTS. Nothing in this charter shall be construed as in any way affecting the right of the registered voters, under the constitution and statutes of Minnesota, to propose amendments to this charter. M NNESOTA STATUTES ANNOTATED Section 410.12 Subdivision 7 Charter Amendment by Ordinance Subd. 7. Amendment by ordinance. Upon recommendation of the charter commission the city council may enact a charter amendment by ordinance. Such an ordinance, if enacted, shall be adopted by the council by an affirmative vote of all its members after a public hearing upon two weeks published notice containing the text of the proposed amendment and shall be approved by the mayor and published as in the case of other ordinances. An ordinance amending a city charter shall not become effective until 90 days after passage and publication or at such later date as is fixed in the ordinance. Within 60 days after passage and publication of such an ordinance, a petition requesting a referendum on the ordinance may be filed with the city clerk. Such petition shall be signed by qualified voters equal in number to two per cent of the total number of votes cast in the city at the last state general election or 2,000 whichever is less. If the city has a system of permanent registration of voters, only registered voters are eligible to sign the petition. If the requisite petition is filed within the prescribed period, the ordinance shall not become effective until it is approved by the voters as in the case of charter amendments submitted by the charter commission, the council, or by petition of the voters, except that the council may submit the ordinance at any general or special election held at least 60 days after submission of the petition, or it may reconsider its action in adopting the ordinance. As far as practicable the requirements of (Minnesota Statutes 410.12) subdivisions 1 to 3 apply to petitions submitted under this section, to an ordinance amending a charter, and to filing of such ordinance when approved by the voters. Section 5.10. THE REFERENDUM. If prior to the date when an ordinance takes effect a petition signed by qualified registered voters of the City equal in number to ten (10) per cent of the total number of registered voters at the time of the last regular municipal election is filed with the City Clerk requesting that any such ordinance be repealed or submitted to a vote of the registered voters, the ordinance shall thereby be prevented from going into operation. The Council shall thereupon reconsider the ordinance at its next regular meeting, and by a majority vote either repeal or affirm the ordinance as passed. If the ordinance is affirmed, the Council shall immediately order a special election to be held thereon, or submit the ordinance at the next regular municipal election, pending which the ordinance shall remain suspended. If a majority of the voters voting on the ordinance is opposed to the ordinance, it shall not become effective; but if a majority of the voters favor the ordinance, it shall go into effect immediately or on the date therein specified. -10- CHAPTER 6 r ADMINISTRATION OF CITY AFFAIRS Section 6.01. THE CITY MANAGER. The City Manager shall be the Chief Administrative Officer of the City and shall be chosen by the Council solely on the basis of training, experience, and administrative qualifications. The choice shall not be limited to inhabitants of the City or State. The City Manager shall be a citizen of the United States and shall be appointed for an indefinite period. The City Manager shall be removable by the Council at will, provided, however, that if removed at any time after one year of service, the City Manager may, within fifteen (15) days after such removal, demand written charges and a public hearing on the same before the Council; but pending and during such hearing, the Council may suspend the City Manager from office with or without pay. Such public hearing shall take place within thirty (30) days after the demand for the same and the written charges shall be furnished to the City Manager by the Council at least ten (10) days before the hearing. During the suspension, absence or disability of the City Manager, or in case of a vacancy in the office of the City Manager, the duties of said office shall be performed by some properly qualified person designated by the Council as acting manager. Section 6.02. POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE CITY MANAGER. Subdivision 1. Subject to the provisions of this charter, any Council regulations consistent therewith, and other applicable laws, the City Manager shall control and direct the administration of the City's affairs. The City Manager shall have the powers and duties set forth in the following subdivisions. Subdivision 2. The City Manager shall see that this charter and the laws and resolutions of the City are enforced. Subdivision 3. (a) Subject to the provisions of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this Subdivision, the City Manager shall appoint, upon the basis of merit and fitness and may suspend or remove upon the basis of merit and fitness, and upon the provisions of all applicable ordinances, all officers and employees of the City, except the City Attorney, whose appointment and removal shall be at the discretion of the Council. Appointment and removal of department heads shall be made final only upon a majority vote of the Council. (b) The Fire Chief shall be appointed from the members of the Fire Department. Procedures for the appointment, suspension and removal of the Fire Chief shall be set forth in paragraph (a) of this Subdivision. -14- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of 1996, at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to Chapter 6 of the Brooklyn Center City Charter. Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96 hours hi advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 6 OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CHARTER THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Section 6.02, Subdivision 3(a) of the Brooklyn Center City Charter is hereby amended as follows: Section 6.02, Subdivision 3(a): Subject to the provisions of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this Subdivision, the City Manager shall appoint, upon the basis of merit and fitness and may suspend or remove upon the basis of merit and fitness, and upon the provisions of all applicable ordinances, all officers and employees of the City, except the City Attorney, whose appointment and removal shall be at the discretion of the Council. [Appointment and removal of department heads shall be made final only upon a majority vote of the Council.] Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and ninety days after its passage. Adopted this day of 1996. Mayor Myrna Kragness ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) league of minnesota cities III 300 hanover building, 480 cedar sG., saint pawl, minn. 55101 information for municipal officials THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR Contents Page What is the administrator? ..............................1 What functions can be delegated by ordinance without statutory or charter authority? ......................2 What qualifications and characteristics should an administer possess? ..............................3 369.3 January, 1974 Selected list of cities with administrators .......................4 Sample ordinance Mounds View .............................4 The City Administrator What is the administrator? Whether he be called the administrator, the administrative assistant, the coordinator or is known by some other title, this individual is usually the per- son assigned to extricate the governing body from the mire of the nitty gritty. In plan A and standard plan statutory cities and in weak mayor council home rule cities, the council is not only the legislative organ of the city, but also has the responsibility for day -to -day administration of city government. Many councils, finding themselves unable to cope adequately with the flood of decisions which must be made in a city of any size and having rejected sche- duling meetings more frequently or for longer hours, find delegation a practical necessity. "Often this is done informally to the clerk or engineer or other offi- cer with an unstated understanding that the council will ratify those actions which this officer takes if his authority is challenged. r This system works well as long as the council is in complete agreement with the policies of the de facto administrator. However, the instability of this ar- rangement (new council members are elected, new problems arise, citizen complaints can affect attitudes of councilmen) can give such a de facto administrator inse- curity problems and perhaps cause him to be unnecessarily conservative. For these reasons many cities have decided to formalize their de facto administrator system or attempt to rc'.' the council of some of its administrative burden without going to the extent of adopting the more structured council manager plan. This has normally been accomplished by ordinance in statutory cities and in some home rule cities where a charter amendment would likely create opposition. Some home rule cities have also used the method of charter amendment by ordinance to establish the position of administrator in the charter. It is possible in this way to assign more duties than are permissible by the ordinance method. (See League memo 369.e on this subject). 2 Substantial numbers of cities that have used administrators in the past have subsequently adopted the council manager form of government, under which the man- ager's duties and functions are quite definite. For example, in 1944, the Edina council by resolution vested administrative powers in the engineer and purchasing agent, conferring on him the title of "exe- cutive officer and manager" of the council and its committees. Subsequently, Edina adopted plan B, the council manager plan, and has been operating under this form of government since 1954. A somewhat similar pattern existed in Coon Rapids and Golden Valley with both municipalities now employing city managers. What functions can be delegated by ordinance without statutory or charter authority? The governing body of a municipality cannot delegate its legislative power or its administrative power calling for judgment and discretion to an administra- tive assistant or otherwise. (Jewell Belting Co. v. Bertha,.91 Minn. 9,-97 N.W. 424, 1903). This rule has no application, however, to the delegation of ministerial or administrative functions where there are fixed and certain standards or rules which leave the administrative assistant only reasonable discretion in adminis- tering such guidelines. Where, for example, in the auditing and allowing of claims against the city, the council acts in a quasi judicial capacity, its power and duties in this regard are nondelegable. Thus, without the fixing of definite standards or directions pursuant to which the administrative assistant must act, the council cannot authorize the administrative assistant independently to make necessary purchases up to certain dollar amounts without the approval of a city council. By the same token, the administrative assistant may not be authorized to hire and fire municipal employees except upon adequate rules or standards for his guidance or upon final approval by the council. 3 What qualifications and characteristics should an administrator possess? This will depend to a great extent upon the functions he is expected to per- form. An examination of the ordinance creating the position and establishing his powers and duties would be the first step in deciding who should fill the position. Generally speaking the kinds of knowledge and skills called for are so gener- al and varied that their acquisition does not depend on a specific background of education or experience. Certainly, a municipal administrator must have acquired a general knowledge of organizational techniques, urban problems and procedures, and means of coordinating a wide variety of activities; and he must have developed a skill at understanding and working with people. But while it is important to con- sider these qualities, they are too vague and general to serve as a basis for classifying a candidate as professional or nonprofessional. Experience in a position requiring solution of the problems of urban govern- ment, and an educational background for public administration, are also important. An increasing number of administrators have a background of education in this field either at the undergraduate or the graduate level of study. A few such programs are designed primarily to train for general urban management. Not infrequently the university educational programs include internships under experienced urban rlanagers. Such internships bring a trainee face to face with urban government problems and with ways of dealing with them. For further information on selection procedures see "Memo to a Mayor in Search of a Manager," Minnesota Municipalities, March 1971. For further discussion, see "The Pros and Cons of the Council- Manager Plan," 390e.8, much of which also applies to administrator systems. Selected list of cities with administrators The following statutory cities have been selected at random to illustrate the use of administrators: 4 Apply Valley Braham Chanhassen Circle Pines Farmington Forest Lake Grand Rapids Olivia Paynesville Saul; RaUi ds Shorevi e'a Spring Lake Park aclainistrator 8,502 ad, ministrator 744 ad? .inistrator 5,054 administratcr 3,918 administrator 3,104 administrative assistant 3,207 clerk administrator 7,247 executive director 2,553 coordinator 2,582 clerk- administrator 1,920 administrative assistant .5,051 administrator and administrative 11,034 assistant 4,774 administrator 6,417 The following mayor council cities also have administrators or administrative assistants: Canby Duluth Fergus Falls Fairmont Hutchinson Jackson Luve rae Madison Marshall Northfield North 1vdan' Red Ming Redwood Falls Rochester St. Cloud South St. Paul administrative assistant 2,081 administrative assistant 100,578 administrator 12,443 administrative assistant 10,751 administrative assistant 8,031 city administrator 3,550 administrative assistant 4,703 administrator- 2,242 administrative assistant 9,886 city administrator 10,235 city administrator 7,347 council administrator 12,834 administrator 4,774 city administrator 53,766 chief administrator 39,691 city coordinator 25,016 Sample Ordinance kbunds View 1973 5.02 Clerk- Administrator. Subdivision 1. The duties of the Clerk Administrator of the Municipality shall include the duties of the clerk. The Clerk- Administrator shall give the required notice of each regular and special election, record the proceedings thereof, notify officials of their elections or appointments to office, certify to the County Auditor all appointments and the results of all Municipal elections. He shall keep: (1) A minute book, noting therein all proceedings of the council; (2) An ordinance book, in which he shall record at length all ordinances passed by the council; (3) An account book, in which he shall enter all money transactions of the Municipality, including the dates and amounts of all receipts and the person from whom the money was received and all orders dravin upon the treasurer with their payee and object. 5 (4) Ordinances, resolutions and claims considered by the council need not be given in full in the minute book if they appear in other permanent records of the clerk and can be accurately identified from the description given in the minutes. The Clerk Administrator shall act as the clerk and bookkeeper of the Ibinicipality, shall be the custodian of its seal and records, shall sign its official papers, shall post and publish such notices, ordinances and resolutions as may be required and shall perform such other appropriate duties as may be imposed upon him by the council, For certified copies and for filing and entering, when required, papers not relating to Nfunicipal business, he shall receive the fees allowed by law to town clerks; but the council may require the clerk to pay such Fees to the Municipal Treasury. With the consent of the council, he may appoint a deputy for whose acts he shall be responsible and whom he may remove at pleasure. In case of the Clerk Administrator's absence from the Municipality or disability, the council may appoint a deputy Clerk Administrator if there is none, to serve during such absence or dis- ability. The deputy may discharge any of the duties of the Clerk Administrator ex- cept that he shall not be a member of the council. (412.151). Subdivision 2. Other Duties. (1) Direct the administration as provided by Council action, state and federal statutes. Coordinate with the Council in administering Municipal affairs. (2) Prepare reports and summaries relating to contemplated municipal projects and /or improvements and submit them with recommendations as may be required to the Council for study and subsequent action. (3) Prepare an annual fiscal budget and capital improvement plan'for submis- sion to the Council. Maintain financial guidelines for the Municipality within the scope of the approved budget and capital program. (4). Prepare the annual financial statement and perform other duties as re- quired in Minnesota Statutes 412.141 and 5.04 of the Code. (5) Attend and participate in all council meetings. Attend at his discre- tion or by invitation other committee and commission meetings. (6) Coordinate municipal programs and activities as authorized by the Council.. (7) Submit quarterly reports to the Council of the financial condition of the Municipal accounts. (8) Supervise the conduct of local elections in accordance with the pre- scribed laws and regulations. (9) Supervise the activities of all Municipal department heads and the ad- ministrative staff in the administration of Municipal policy with authority to effectively recommend their employment and removal. (10) Work in cooperation with the Council's appointed attorney and engineer. (11) Prepare news releases, develop and discuss public relations material with all concerned as required. Maintain good public relations with the general public. 6 (12) Consult with appointed officials and with other public or private agencies as may be required. (13) Be fully informed regarding federal, state and county programs which affect the Municipality. (14) Negotiate or delegate the negotiation of the terms and conditions of employee labor contracts for presentation to the Council. (15) Perform all duties required of him by ordinances or resolutions adopted by the Council. Subdivision 3. Requirements of knowledge, skills and abilities. (1) Considerable knowledge of Municipal government operation, proper proce- dures, public relations, finances, purchasing, and all administrative requirements for proper municipal operation. (2) Knox ledge of or ability to acquire full knowledge of all laws affecting the Municipality. (3) Ability to provide harmonious relations with Municipal employees and general public. (4) Ability to plan development, to collect material and analyze for report- ing, and to conduct and implement studies of procedures, operations and'organization. Subdivision 4. Education and experience. Degree in public administration or its equivalent and five years' experience in municipal administration. Subdivision 5. Appointment. The Clerk- Administrator is appointed by a major- ity of the Council for an indefinite term, removal only by a majority of the Council. SGP:ck 12/6/73 a researc i memo for city off icia s 390e.8 January, 1966 THE PROS AND CONS OF THE COUNCIL MANAGER PLAN r: Epp'I CONTENTS I. What is the Council- Manager Plan? II. Arguments for and Against the Manager Plan 1. Relation of Policy and Administration 2. Expertness of Administration 3. Competence of Administration 4. Popular Control 5. Competence of Council 6. Effect on Political Leadership 7. Getting and Keeping a Manager 8. Cost of Government 9. Permanence of Improvement III. Conclusions IV. Adoptions and Abandonments of the Council Manager Plan A. In the United States B. In Minnesota .ea Ue of Vinnesota Cifies 3490 Lexington Avenue North, St. Paul, MN 55126 (612) 490 -5600 O 1993 'League of Minnesota Cities All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America THE PROS AND CONS OF THE COUNCIL MANAGER PLAN I. What is the Council- Manager Plan? The council manager plan, the newest of the four principal types of municipal government structure, has been adopted by nearly 2,000 cities and villages in the United States and this total is growing at an average rate of about 50 municipalities a year. More than one -third of the cities with populations of over 5,000 have managers. The plan is especially popular in the population range of 25,000 to 100,000. The basic features of the plan are as follows: The citizens elect a council, usually at large. The council then selects a chief executive known as a city manager to be directly responsible to the council for all administrative duties, including hiring and firing of employees, supervision of all administrative departments and the preparation and enforcement of the budget. The manager has indefinite tenure and is subject to removal by the council at will. All ceremonial duties devolve upon the mayor, who also usually serves as president of the council. Although details of the plan vary from city to city, there is enough similarity to give a basis for argument about the merits of the plan. The broad outline of the pro and con positions is briefly sketched below. The arguments assume a conventional council manager plan in which there are no independent boards and all of the administrative responsibility devolves upon the manager with all policy making entrusted to the council. iI. Arguments For and Against the Manager Plan. 1. RELATION OF POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION Proponents say: Policy formulation and administration are kept separate in the council- manager plan. As a representative body the council is the proper body to legislate. It is competent to form local policy. But the plan gives to the manager duties of carrying out the council's policy. This separation preserves the distinction between controlling the business of government and actually doing it. Wrote John Stuart Mill, "The business of the elective body is not to do the work but to see that it is properly done, and that nothing necessarily is left undone." The distinction is also preserved in private business corporations and' school district government, where there is both a board of directors and a general manager (school superintendent). 2 9pponents says_ In actual practice the distinction is impossible to maintain. in most administrative decisions the manager is, in effect, laying down policy. He cannot, nor is he expected to, go to the council for detailed instructions. Administration is his province, to be sure, but when he uses his own judgment in administrative tasks he is directing municipal policy along a certain route. Furthermore, the council finds it difficult to stay out of the administrative sphere. It is responsible for all aspects of municipal government; it has merely delegated details to the manager. Instead of producing a separation of policy and administration the manager plan may result in a diffusion of responsibility. The manager can lay the blame for poor administration of obstructive policy while the can claim that good policy is being subverted by administration. Proponents reply_ It is no easier for the voter to fix responsibility for administrative acts in any other form of city government. In addition, it is easier to remedy where the manager plan has been adopted. Even though the distinction between policy and administration cannot be completely settled by reference to a definition there is, nevertheless, an important distinction between the two that is essential to good administration and popular control and only the manager plan fully recognizes it. 2. EXPERTNESS OF ADMINISTRATION Proponents say: The manager plan recognizes the need for the expert in administration. Ordinarily the manager is a man with both training and experience. Even when he is not brought in from outside the city the nature of the position is one that attracts a man of managerial ability in the community. opponents saw There is no assurance that the council will pick a good man for the job. If it does not, the whole system will fail because it depends so much on one man. Proponents reply: It is true that the success of the manager plan, like any other plan of government, is dependent on the quality of those who administer it. By and large, however, the quality of the manager is likely to be far above the quality of administrators chosen under other plans. Furthermore, if a bad manager is selected this will soon be known and the council may remove him at will. The manager plan tends to make a career of city 3 management in the same way that school administration has become a career. 3. COMPETENCE OF ADMINISTRATION Proponents say The quality of administration under the council manager plan is likely to be much higher, not only because the chief administrator will be a skilled expert but because the whole administrative organization is integrated and operates under a single director who can make maximum use of personnel and equipment, cutting across departmental lines and viewing the needs of the municipal government as a whole. Furthermore, the manager is likely to be a more careful administrator than an elective official like the mayor. Studies have shown that a large part of a mayor's time is spent in speaking engagements, greeting visitors and other activities of a ceremonial nature. Careful administrative supervision becomes almost a physical impossibility. On the other hand, managers are largely free from these demands. A further consideration is that an incompetent manager can be removed at once while a mayor or other elective administrative official, even though incompetent, must be retained until the end of his term. Opponents argue: It is dangerous to have all administration centered in one individual. If administration is divided among the mayor, council and various administrative boards and independently elected officials an incompetent or dishonest official will not color the entire administration. If there is an efficiency gained in administration it is at the expense of the people's protection. 4. POPULAR CONTROL Proponents argue: Popular control is more effective under the council manager plan than under any other plan of city government. The concentration of responsibility in the council provides a focus of attention for the voters. By changing the council, the voters can influence municipal policy in all its aspects. Where there are various boards, a mayor with administrative powers, and a council, the prospect for popular control is discouraging. Through the council in a manger -plan city the people can quickly and effectively control administration by the making of policy and in the hiring and firing of the manager. 4 Opponents arque: The manager plan is "dictatorial" and "undemocratic" because the entire responsibility for administration, including the power to hire and fire, is in the manager. The people have no opportunity to select the manager. They can control him, if at all, only through the indirect method of electing the council. Proponents counter argue: A plan cannot be considered dictatorial when the "dictator" is removable at the will of a popularly elected body. It cannot be considered "undemocratic" because its chief administrator is appointed any more than the school board system can be considered undemocratic. The very fact that managers have indefinite tenure means that they must be the most tactful and conciliatory of men. Managers who have tried imperiously to impose their ideas on the community, have not been successful nor have they long retained their jobs. 5. COMPETENCE OF COUNCIL Proponents say_ Under the manager plan councils will be composed of more competent members. When time- consuming administrative details have been given to a manager, community leaders will be more easily induced to seek council membership. Moreover, voters have only a few positions to fill and can, therefore, concentrate on electing the best men. Opponents answer: Although this may be a persuasive, theoretical argument, experience has demonstrated that the caliber of the council members has not been significantly affected by adoption of the manager plan. Proponents re ply: How much improvement in the competence of councils can be attributed to the manager plan is, of course, very difficult to prove. But it can certainly be argued that the manager plan tends to produce better councils. Furthermore, even if the councilmen were not of any higher caliber under the manager plan they are able to do a better job of determining policies because they are freed from the need for attention to the mass of details that beset councils of commission or council -mayor cities and they are likely to be provided with the information necessary for sound policy decisions. 5 6. EFFECT ON POLITICAL LEADERSHIP Opponents argue: The council manager form provides less adequate political leadership than the strong -mayor plan. The mayor has so little power that the office does not attract men who would run for the office in a strong mayor plan city. He cannot because of his position dominate the council. Voters should have direct control over those who make policy and, therefore, it is very important that they directly elect the chief policy maker, the chief executive. Proponents answer: The council, not the manager, has complete power to make all policy decisions. Furthermore, although in theory mayors give leadership on municipal policies in strong mayor cities, in actual practice many mayors are incapable of doing so or are not allowed to do so because of political pressures. Effective leadership under the council manager plan can come from council members. Furthermore, if this argument has any merit at all it must be confined to comparisons between the council- manager plan and the strong -mayor plan. Actually, however, there is only one city.in Minnesota with a true strong -mayor plan and it is much more realistic to compare the manager plan with the weak -mayor or commission plan, neither of which provides as much opportunity for political leadership as the manager plan does. In addition, it may be said that the point is of practically no significance in the average -sized community; the problem of political ,leadership becomes important only in the larger cities. 7. GETTING AND KEEPING A MANAGER Opponents say: It is difficult, if not impossible, for the smaller communities especially, to get a competent manager. Furthermore, there is such a tendency for managers to move on to greener pastures that a city will spend much of its time in training managers only to have them leave the service before returning to the community the benefit of that training. Proponents answer: More and more universities are giving training either in city management specifically or in public administration generally and as the manager movement grows, the supply of managers even managers with experience will continue to grow. If an experienced manager is not available, other persons of good general qualifications and an aptitude for administration R can always be found if the council is willing to look far enough for them. Of the 312 managers appointed in 1964, 84% had previous public administration experience as assistant managers, administrative assistants, interns or in other municipal administrative positions. A total of 102 of those appointed were managers promoted from other cities and 35 were former managers re- entering the profession. Only 7% of the managers came from nongovernmental positions compared to 9% in 1963, 17% in 1950, and 27% in 1939. Also, 67% of all manager appointments in 1964 were from outside the city compared to 73% for the ten -year period 1950 -59 and 58% for the decade 1940 -49. These data substantiate the trend towards the increasing professionalization of municipal management, according to the International City Managers' Association. A total of 116 men who were city managers sometime during 1964 were not in office at the end of the year. This represents a turnover of 6.4% as compared with 6.8% in 1963 and 7.5% in 1962. The average tenure of 26 managers who died in office or retired was 13.9 years for all cities served and 10.4 years per city. Of the 90 managers who resigned or were removed from office, 90 had served only one city with an average tenure of 3.8 years while the remaining 40 managers, who had served from 2 to 6 cities each, had an average tenure of 8.5 years for all cities served and 2.9 years per city. (Information from the Municipal Year Book 1965, published by the International City Managers' Association.) 5. COST OF GOVERNMENT a. Manager as additional position Opponents argue; Since the manager is an additional officer small municipalities cannot afford to hire a manager. Proponents reply: Over the years many municipalities over 5,000 have enjoyed the benefits of the plan without straining their budgets. In the smaller communities where managing in itself is not a full -time responsibility the position can be combined with some other municipal office manager- engineer, manager- utility superintendent, manager- attorney. Where the manager is a full -time officer he can more than justify the salary paid him by reducing waste and inefficiency. b. Effect on taxes Proponents saw Because of expert character of administration under the manager plan, the separation of politics and administration, and the integration of the administrative set -up, the cost of government will tend to be less under the manager plan than under other forms. Opp onents reply: Figures do not show that the manager plan saves money for the taxpayers. Proponents counter: It is impossible to compare total costs because the very fact that government operates efficiently may result in taxpayer pressure to perform more municipal services. The important point is that unit costs will tend to be less, and the taxpayer tends to get more for his tax dollar. 9. PERMANENCE OF IMPROVEMENT Opponents saw-. Benefits of the council- manager plan are likely to be transitory. The initial enthusiasm will wear off and soon the standard of performance will decline to its former level. Proponents reply: This is the danger that inheres in any human endeavor. It is not related to the manager plan as such. The corrective is not a change of structure but a change in community attitudes. III. Conclusions There is nothing automatic about the council- manager plan. The introduction of the new form in government is not a patent medicine that cures all municipal ills. Too often a community has been disappointed because the proponents of a plan have claimed too much for it. One study has shown that the success of the plan depends in large measure upon how far it is integrated with the social attitudes and traditions of the community. The greatest success has been achieved where cities have been truly community governed. There the councils have been of high quality and the council- manager relations have been cooperative. In cities that have been ridden by political factions or machines the municipal administration has been strengthened but not so much as in the community- governed cities. This is largely because political amateurs have been instrumental in introducing the manager plan in order to get rid of inefficiency and waste. After initial success they have then lost interest. They have not realized that change for the sake of change is not enough. Constant interest and cooperation is essential. Like every other political structure the council manager plan is not self- operating. What, then, have been the results of the council- manager plan? Many of its proponents have claimed that it will reduce taxes. This has not usually been demonstrable. On the other hand, and generally speaking, citizens have received much greater value for every tax dollar. General consensus of impartial observers is that the council- manager plan has reduced waste, lowered unit costs, improved administrative organization, fostered better personnel practice, given more expert administration, improved the city's public relations, and placed the city government in a more vital role. In summary, the manager needs the community as much as the community needs the manager. The plan gives any city the opportunity for better government, if citizens realize what the plan can do and give it constant support. If this support is not likely to be forthcoming and the spirit of the manager plan is not respected, advisability of adopting the plan at all is open to serious question. IV. Adoptions and Abandonments of the Council Manager Plan A. In this United States* A total of 83 cities, towns and other urban places were added in 1964 to the number of local governments operating under the council- manager plan. Of these 83 places, 41 adopted the plan under home rule charters, optional state law, or special act of the legislature; 21 adopted the plan by ordinance and 21 had adopted the plan in prior years. This brings to 1,953 the total of places in the continental United States that have the council- manager plan, including places under 5,000 in population as well as those over that figure. In addition, there are 340 council- appointed administrators in the United States and Canadian municipalities that are not recognized as operating under the council- manager plan. Of the 60 referendums held in 1964, 42, or 70 resulted in the adoption of the council- manager plan by *Information taken from The Municipal Year Book, 1965, International City Managers' Association, pp. 297 -300. w vote of the people or receipt of a charter by action of the state legislature. This compares with 77% in 1963, 69% in 1962, 54% in 1961 and 70% in 1960. Ten places were removed from the list of council- manager municipalities. In three of these cities, the abandonment elections in 1964 and previous years became effective. In one city, the council rescinded the ordinance creating the position of manager. Five places were found not to be operating under the council- manager plan, and one city was removed because it consolidated with another city. Twelve cities held referendums during 1964 on the continuation of the council manager plan, and voters in five of these decided to abandon the plan, as compared to 21 referendums and 6 abandonments in 1963. Since 1908 a total of 81 cities and counties have abandoned the council- manager plan, excluding 23 places where the plan has been re- adopted. 1959 FORM OF GOVERNMENT IN CITIES OVER 5,000 POPULATION* (UNITED STATES) Population Total Total MAYOR/ COMMISSION COUNCIL/ Group No. of No. of COUNCIL MANAGER Cities Cities in Table No. No. No. Over 500,000 17 17 16 94 0 0 1 6 250 to 500,000 23 23 9 39 5 22 9 39 100 to 250,000 68 68 29 43 13 19 26 38 50 to 100,000 133 132 45 34 26 20 61 46 25 to 50,000 291 283 104 37 42 15 137 48 10 to 25,000 846 802 358 45 116 14 328 41 5 to 10,000 1,184 1,150 691 60 110 10 349 30 All Cities over 5,000 2,562 2,475 1,252 51 312 13 911 37 The Municipal Year Book, 1959 (Population based on 1950 census) 10 1964 FORM OF GOVERNMENT IN CITIES OVER 5,00 POPULATION (UNITED STATES) Population Total Total MAYOR/ COMMISSION COUNCIL/ Group No. of No. of COUNCIL MANAGER Cities Cities in OVER 500,000 250 to 500,000 100 to 250,000 50 to 100,000 25 to 50,000 10 to 25,000 5 to 10,000 All Cities over 5,000 B. In Minnesota Thirty municipalities presently operate under the council- manager form of government. They include 8 villages and 22 home rule charter cities. There have been no abandonments. Several cities and villages, not formally considered council manager governments, have employed administrators or administrative assistants. In 1964, four municipalities (Roseville, Richfield, Robbinsdale and Blaine) adopted the council- manager plan and one (Spring Lake Park) rejected it. In 1965, one (Benson) adopted the plan and one (Plymouth) rejected it. Not included in this table are Washington, D.C., 13 cities with town meeting government, 19 with representative town meeting government, and 11 other cities for which no information was received. The Municipal Year Book, 1965 (Population based on 1960 census) Table No. No. No. 21 20 16 80.0 0 0.0 4 20.0 31 31 15 48.4 4 12.9 12 38.7 79 79 30 38.0 10 12.6 39 49.4 194 192 73 38.0 21 10.9 98 51.1 407 391 139 35.6 47 12.0 205 52.4 1,030 1,013 474 46.8 98 9.7 441 43.5 1,289 1,281 821 64.1 57 4.4 403 31.5 3,051 3,007+ 1,568 52.1 237 7.9 1,202 40.0 B. In Minnesota Thirty municipalities presently operate under the council- manager form of government. They include 8 villages and 22 home rule charter cities. There have been no abandonments. Several cities and villages, not formally considered council manager governments, have employed administrators or administrative assistants. In 1964, four municipalities (Roseville, Richfield, Robbinsdale and Blaine) adopted the council- manager plan and one (Spring Lake Park) rejected it. In 1965, one (Benson) adopted the plan and one (Plymouth) rejected it. Not included in this table are Washington, D.C., 13 cities with town meeting government, 19 with representative town meeting government, and 11 other cities for which no information was received. The Municipal Year Book, 1965 (Population based on 1960 census) 11 Council- manager charters have been rejected by the voters in the following municipalities: Bemidji (1948) (a) Minneapolis (1926, 1948, 1960) (d) Benson (1948) (a) Park Rapids (1949) Bloomington (1955, 1960) (b) Robbinsdale (1927, 1935) Chisholm (1952) Crookston (1948) Duluth (1940) (c) Faribault (1949) Fergus Falls (1950) Hastings (1948) Hibbing (1960) Mankato (1940) (a) Marshall (1960) Rochester (1946, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1965) (e) St. Cloud (1948) (c) St. Paul (ante 1930) St. Louis Park (1949) (a) Shakopee (1960) (f) So. St. Paul (1943, 1947, 1957) (g) Sleepy Eye (1957) Winthrop (1959) (h) (a) Later adopted manager plan by charter (b) Later adopted Plan B and a council manager charter in 1960 (c) Later adopted strong mayor council charter. (d) Adoption of the 1948 or 1960 charter would have given the city a strong mayor council plan. (e) Adoption of the 1955 charter would have enabled the city to employ a chief administrative officer. The same applies to the 1965 charter. (f) Adoption of the charter would have given the city a strong mayor council plan. (g) If the 1957 charter had been adopted the council could have hired a full -time secretary as its administrator. (h) Adoption of the charter would have enabled the city to employ an administrative assistant. Optional Plan B has been defeated in the following villages: Plymouth (1965) Spring Lake Park (1964) Brooklyn Center (1961) Grand Rapids (1956) (The village has since adopted Plan A) North St. Paul (1949) (Passed in 1951) 12 Roseville (1956) (Passed in 1964) Wells (1949) Zumbrota (1949) Proposed abandonments of the council- manager plan were unsuccessful in Mankato and North St. Paul in 1954, (and again in Mankato in 1960), Granite Falls in 1956, Mound in 1957, and Albert Lea in 1962. Data about municipalities with council manager plans can be found in the League memorandum "The Council- Manager and Strong Mayor- Council Plans of Government in Minnesota," 390e.4. OCP /nw 9/22/52 Rev. LLK /ee 1/11/66