Supplementary reading

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

PART 1

The Basic Position and Argument

Mayor-Council

Those who speak in favor of a Mayor-Council form of government emphasize the importance of the mayor as the city's chief executive. As the city's chief executive, the mayor formulates the budget, recommends policy and oversees, usually along with an administrative aide, the day-to-day administration of city programs. The mayor also appoints and removes department heads. The voters know what to expect from their elected mayor and they see the benefit of having a mayor who is an accountable leader. The mayor in turn needs to respond to the voters, as a public figure, and should be available and open to their opinions. It is the voters who have by their direct participatory involvement elected this one particular person as their city's leader and who then is accountable to them. Proponents also state that, traditionally, the favored form of city government has been the Mayor-Council form. They also claim that mayors with real authoritative power have more influence at the state level and are thus more effective at bringing in state money.

Council-Manager

Those who speak in favor of a Council-Manager form of government seek efficiency and economy in delivering public services, often taking as their model the corporate board with its administrative director. Supporters of this form of government argue that providing basic public services is a complex, professional process and should therefore not be vulnerable to political influences. The purpose then of the Council-Manager system is to take politics out of city administration. The political dimension of this system resides in an elected council, which is responsible for the hiring and firing of the city manager. This city manager is expected to be a politically neutral and a skilled professional dedicated to providing excellence in the management and delivery of public services. Proponents state that the council-manager form is fast becoming the most popular form of government in cities of a certain size. They also stress that city managers, as professionals, are experts in money management and have the added advantage of a network of other professionals when advice is needed. Let us look at some of the more specific issues and counter arguments that follow from the two opposing options about city government.

PART 2

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.

TEXT 2: New York counties

New York counties began as entities established by the State Legislature to carry out specified functions at the local level on behalf of the state. During the 20th century, county government in New York underwent major changes in function, form and basic nature.

The counties in New York are no longer merely subdivisions of the state that primarily exist to perform state functions. The county is now a municipal corporation with geographical jurisdiction, home rule powers and the fiscal capacity to provide a wide range of services to its residents. To some extent, counties have evolved into a form of “regional” government that performs specified functions and which encompasses, but does not necessarily supersede, the jurisdiction of the cities, towns and villages within its borders.

New York State outside New York City is divided into 57 counties. The five boroughs of the City of New York function as counties for certain purposes, although they are not organized as such nor do they operate as county governments. Unless otherwise indicated, references to counties in this chapter will apply only to those outside New York City.

Counties in New York are very diverse in population and demographics. The 2000 Census populations of the counties vary from Suffolk County's 1, 419, 369 to Hamilton County's 5, 379. St. Lawrence County is the largest in geographical area, with over 2, 700 square miles, and Rockland is the smallest, with 175 square miles. The most densely populated county is Nassau County with more than 4, 500 people per square mile, and the most sparsely populated is Hamilton County, with fewer than 3 people per square mile.

Of the state's 57 counties outside New York City, 21 contain no cities. All counties include towns and villages, although the number of each varies widely, from 32 towns in St. Lawrence, Cattaraugus and Steuben counties to three towns in Nassau County, and from Hamilton and Warren counties' one village each to Nassau County's 64 villages.

The foregoing statistics indicate that it can be deceptive to speak of counties in New York State as though they were all alike. New York counties are among the most urban and the most rural in the nation, and the interests, concerns and governmental expectations of their residents are similarly diverse.

Oswego County Guide To Governments

TEXT 3: State and Local Government. Innovations in Public education

Public education is a good case study of how the states are playing an increased role in public policy. On average, U.S. states devote almost 30 percent of their budgets to education, the largest single item in most state budgets. As state spending for education has increased, the states began to play a larger role in education, holding local school districts accountable to state standards. Most states now require periodic testing of students to mark the progress of learning. When students fall below state standards, the states require special remedial programs, and, if all else fails, the state can even take over the actual day-to-day operations of an under-performing school district. Many states also require the testing of teachers. Many states now require that prospective teachers demonstrate their competency through testing before they can be certified to teach. Several states go further and require that teachers undertake programs of in-service training and continuing education in order to maintain their certification.

Testing is not the only state innovation to improve education. Many states are experimenting with limited privatization in the provision of education services. Several states, for example, provide tuition vouchers or tax deductions to enable students to study at nonpublic, private schools. For instance, in Pennsylvania, a limited number of public schools in Philadelphia are now operated by outside, private agencies. Many states have also authorized “charter schools,” schools operated by parents’ groups and others within the framework of the public school system. However, the results of these experiments in privatization have yet to be fully evaluated.

The states have initiated many other innovations in education, such as governance issues. For example, Kentucky has mandated parent teacher councils attached to every school building. These councils have significant authority over budget and curriculum decisions. Other reforms attempt to improve the quality of education in specific disciplines. North Carolina, for example, in an attempt to improve science education, provides opportunities for the most gifted students to study science at local colleges and universities. To bring practical experience into classrooms, the state of New Jersey permits individuals retired from the military, business and government to teach in the public schools without going through the normal teacher certification process. Several states have adopted systems of “merit pay,” basing teacher salary increases on performance rather than on longevity. The perceived crisis in education has brought about new “public-private partnerships” in many communities. Most of these partnerships involve local businesses and neighborhood schools. For example, the Birmingham, Alabama, law firm, Bradley Arant, has partnered with the Powell Elementary School and provides tutoring to under-performing students, purchases some school supplies and materials, and makes its copying facilities available to teachers to duplicate school materials.

IIP Electronic Journals,Vol. 8

TEXT 4: State and Local Government. Using E-Government Effects of the Digital Revolution

by Sharon Crouch Steidel

THE IMPACT the “digital revolution” has on the U.S. public’s daily lives continues to grow. Citizens now use technology to access countless services and transactions that were only imagined a few years ago. Government agencies recognize this and are beginning to realize the opportunities available to change how people interact with them. Studies indicate that at least 70 percent of Americans access the Internet several times a week. It is therefore not surprising that in a poll conducted by the Council for Excellence in Government, the same percentage of Americans feel it is appropriate to invest tax dollars in e-government initiatives.