Loading...
02/10/1994 CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING February 10, 1994 The Charter Review Committee met at City Hall, on Thursday, February 10, 1994 at 7:00 p.m., with the following members present: Gerald Figurski, Chairman Jerry Lancaster, Vice-Chairman Joe Evich Kenneth Hamilton Al Lijewski Curlee Rivers Tony Salmon Karen Seel Les Smout Absent: Anne Garris (excused) Also present: Mary K. Diana, Assistant City Clerk The Chairman called the meeting to order and greeted Ruth Ann Bramson, the speaker for tonight, Johnny Crawford, an intern from the University of South Florida, and Commissioner Art Deegan. Minutes of February 2, 1994 Member Lijewski moved to approve the minutes of February 2, 1994 as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Presentation on Forms of Government Chairman Figurski introduced Ruth Ann Bramson, president of Local Strategies, Inc. Ms. Bramson said the issue of form of government is being discussed by many cities. She submitted articles from the July 1993 issue of Governing Magazine on the strong mayor form of government and a retort to that article from the January 1994 issue of Public Management. She reviewed the various forms of government that are used by cities today and the characteristics and features of the council-manager and mayor-council forms and the arguments that their advocates make. She stated the council/manager form of government is the most popular form and is described as the one real contribution Americans have made to political theory. Since its first adoption in 1908, this form has been adopted by 48 percent of cities with populations over 10,000. She said this form of government combines political leadership in the hands of elected officials with managerial expertise in the hands of an elected administrator. The control of the government is concentrated in the hands of the elected members of the council. The size of the council is generally smaller in council-manager governments than in mayor-council governments. Elections are usually non-partisan. The mayor is recognized as the head of the municipality and has significant symbolic and leadership responsibilities. Although recognized as the political head, the mayor does not have the power to veto legislative actions. The council is responsible for setting policy for approving budget and determining the tax rate. The council hires a manager or administrator to carry out the policies and this administrator serves at the pleasure of the council. Typically, the administrator has no tenure and can be fired at will. The administrator has the responsibility to prepare the budget, direct the day to day operations, hire and fire personnel and serves as the council's chief advisor. The mayor-council form of government most clearly parallels the American federal government. It is the form of government for the six largest cities and for 42 percent of cities over 10,000 in population. The mayor is designated as the head of the city government. The mayor's duties and powers generally include hiring and firing department heads, preparing and administering the budget and veto power, which typically may be overridden by acts of the legislature. The council has the responsibilities of adopting the budget, passing resolutions, legislation, auditing the performance of government and adoption of general policy positions. In some communities, the mayor assumes a larger policy making role and responsibility for day to day operations; sometimes this is delegated to an administrator. Many of the larger cities today are using a chief administrative officer who is appointed by the mayor and serves at the mayor's pleasure. Another form of government is the commission form which is used by approximately 3 percent of cities with a population over 5,000. It is the most common form of government used in counties; approximately 77 percent of all counties use this form. Under this form, there is an elected governing body with legislative and executive powers that has the responsibility for adopting the budget, passing resolutions and enacting ordinances, regulations, etc. A number of other officials are elected in this form such as the sheriff, the tax collector, etc. Two other forms in existence, generally in the northeast, are the town meeting and the representative town meeting whereby representatives are elected and a large legislative body runs the local government. These two forms are found in New England and in communities with less than a population of 25,000. Ms. Bramson noted there is an interesting mix in forms of governments throughout the counties in Florida. Member Evich asked if the delineation between council and commission forms of government is the election of a chief administrator like the Mayor. Ms. Bramson said this is part of it. She indicated many of the mayor-council forms of governments are hiring a chief administrative officer who serves at the pleasure of the mayor whereas in the council-manager form of government the council hires a city manager or chief administrative officer who works for the council as a body. Member Evich asked if the mayor is also the chief executive officer who has the final say under the mayor-council and Ms. Bramson indicated this was the case. Member Evich asked if there are weak mayor-councils as opposed to strong mayor-councils. Ms. Bramson said she did not favor this terminology indicating it was misleading. She said there can be strong mayors under both forms of government. Member Evich asked what is the normal tenure of a city manager under a very strong mayor leadership. Ms. Bramson responded the national average tenure of a city manager is 4-1/2 years. She noted there are cities, such as Charlotte, that has had a city manager for approximately 14 years with a succession of mayors. In response to a question, Ms. Bramson responded Charlotte has a council-manager form of government. Member Evich asked if it is typically more non-partisan in the council-manager form of government as opposed to the mayor-council where there may be more party involvement and patronage. Ms. Bramson responded one of the arguments for the council-manager form of government is that the appointments are more professional. Ms. Bramson said supporters of the mayor-council form of government argue this form is the most easily understood by the citizens and therefore can be used more effectively; it is more democratic because it is the person elected by the citizens who runs the government; it is more accountable because the accountability is more focused on an individual; the political power of the city council is a big weakness in the council-manager form of government; the city manager ends up being the servant of the council who can be dismissed at any time; and in the last decade the change from at-large to single member districts has caused a diminishment of true council management in government because the individual council members have gotten stronger in their district identification. Ms. Bramson indicated cities with mayor-council forms of government are going more toward hiring chief administrative officers than a decade ago. Member Evich asked if the mayor hires a chief administrative officer because of political circumstances and to have a professional person to pass the blame to. Ms. Bramson responded a great deal of buck passing occurs in politics everywhere but felt this would be a hard case to make. Mr. Lancaster felt a chief administrative officer is hired in order to have someone competent to run the city. Ms. Bramson pointed out those cities with a mayor-council government are also hiring professionals each playing a different role. She said that advocates of the mayor-council form of government would also argue that under the council-manager form professional managers are hired guns and feel local talent is needed; a single powerful leader is needed who can forge coalitions by exchanging benefits for support and can use their power to gain leverage over opponents; and more politics are necessary to pull the diverse communities together. She said it is also said professional managers are not responsive to community needs and when a mayor is elected he/she should have the ability to fill the senior positions with people they feel will implement the platform the mayor was elected on and who are going to be loyal to the mayor. Member Hamilton asked if the mayor-council form tends to have a larger council. Ms. responded this was the case. Member Salmon asked if this was because of the size of the districts. Ms. Bramson indicated the counties in New York have an elected county executive and their legislative bodies are much larger. Ms. Bramson said supporters of the council-manager form of government argue that a city is better off with a professional manager; a professional manager attracts more professional staff; there is more stability in senior positions; the accountability is more absolute; most of the winners of the National Civic's League All American Cities Competition have been council-manager communities and everytime minorities get into the loop the rules change. Minorities are now getting elected to city councils and, therefore, there is a push to move to a mayor-council form of government where the mayor is more likely to come from some of the traditional power sources in the community. Advocates of the council-manager form say this type of government leaves the mayor and council free to focus on the big policy issues and not to be distracted by the day to day operations. It makes it clear the mayor and the council have a policy role and the day to day implementation of the administration is in the hands of a hired professional manager and staff. The supporters of this form of government fill it is in step with the needs of today's cities. It is said a mayor with a strong personality will be a strong mayor regardless of the form of government. Ms. Bramson said there is a need for strong mayors, strong councils and strong managers. She indicated we can have all three and there are cities that demonstrate this. These advocates would also argue the council-manager form is the most efficient and that the cost of government is reduced with competent management and that there are duplicate costs in the mayor/council form; the mayor/council form is flexible and is shaped according to the needs of the community and fosters citizen participation and the mayor/council form focuses too much power in the hands of one person. In closing, Ms. Bramson said a key point often made is that it is the individuals that make any system work. She said the debate between these two forms of government will probably be ongoing. She personally felt that good people committed to good government is what makes communities work and said there are examples around the country where both the mayor-council and council-manager forms of government are working well. She indicated before any city changes its system of government it needs to be sure it is the system that is broken. Member Lijewski felt the statements that the council-manager form of government has more stability and the average tenure of the City Manager is only 4-1/2 years was in contradiction. Ms. Bramson said she intended to convey, while the tenure is approximately 4-1/2 years, the argument often made is there will be more stability in the positions below the city manager. In a mayor-council form of government when there is a change in administration, often there is a significant turnover in the top positions when an election takes place. Member Evich asked in a mayor-council form of government if there is a tendency toward full or parttime councils and if it is customary for the council to approve the mayor's appointments. Ms. Bramson responded the appointments to the administration are typically made by the mayor. She said in some cities certain senior positions come before the council. Member Evich asked if the only motivation for hiring professionals in a mayor-council form would be a concession to the merits of a council-manager form. Ms. Bramson felt this may be part of it but felt there is also a recognition that running a city today is a very complex operation and not something one person can do. She said the recognition of professionalism exists in both forms of government. In response to a question, Ms. Bramson said it is more common in the council-manager form to advertise nationally for a city manager and to hire from among individuals who have worked for a number of cities bringing with them their education and experience. Member Hamilton asked what would be the typical background for a city manager for a city the size of Clearwater. Ms. Bramson responded virtually all city managers either have degrees in public administration, political science, management or business. She said many city managers will go from graduate training to an assistant city manager or an intern in a city manager's office. Their career paths are going from the smaller cities to the larger ones or some climb the ladder within one organization. Member Figurski asked how this contrasted with the managers in the mayor-council form. Ms. Bramson said she has not done enough research in this area and indicated it is much more common for a mayor in a mayor-council city to hire from within the community. Member Figurski commented regarding 42 percent of cities in this country having mayor-council forms of government. Ms. Bramson responded many of these cities are in the northeast and tend to be the older cities and the smaller communities. She said the council-manager is much less common in the northeast than in the southeast or southwest. Member Figurski asked if it would be possible if the City of Clearwater had a city manager working under a strong mayor to develop into the political situation that people criticize a mayor-council form for. Ms. Bramson responded it depends on who is elected mayor. Member Evich asked what forms of government cities the size of Clearwater tend to have. Ms. Bramson referred to an article in one of her handouts that addresses this and what form of government predominates at a certain population level. She said in the population ranges from 100,000 to 250,000, 31 percent had the mayor-council and 67 percent had the council-manager. Member Seel asked if the tax rate or budget increases have been tracked in the council-manager versus the mayor-council. Ms. Bramson responded she has not seen data specifically on tax rates but said there are financial magazines that rank cities with the council-manager form of government close to the top. Member Figurski said it has been indicated the "dream" government is a commission who meets very few hours, sets policy and lets the professionals run the government. He said he would expect to contact a commissioner in his area if he wanted something done and would expect her/him to start making phone calls. He questioned whether it is possible for this ideal system to operate. He felt if there is truly a policy setting commission who meets very few hours a week and does not interfere with department heads, the power would be in the city manager's hands who is not elected and who has no accountability. Member Hamilton felt he would certainly be accountable to the commission. Chariman Figurski felt one of the advantages of council- manager government is the city manager is subject to the will of the commission. However, he said getting her/him to leave can become a long convoluted process. Ms. Bramson said a getting a city manager to leave a city does not always become a long drawn out process. Member Salmon questioned whether the committee was equating the word "strong" with the word "good." Member Lancaster said he would argue in the council-manager form of government that you could call a city official to get something done without going through the political process. Member Seel felt a lot of attention has been paid to management issues and very little attention has been paid to government issues and to how governing boards, both private and public, function. She said the role and function of policy making boards is not well understood. Member Evich felt the city manager tenure turnover of 4-1/2 years in the council-manager form of government did not demonstrate a continuity of professionalism indicating it took at least 3 years to become acclimated. He asked if this turnover was due to the commissioners firing, asking for resignations or because the administrator is furthering his career by moving forward. Ms. Bramson said one reason is a shift in the make-up of the council, an election.  He asked whether changing the administrator could be a campaign matter and Ms. Bramson responded she has rarely seen the administrator a big campaign issue. Citizens are concerned about services and issues rather than who the manager is. Member Smout asked if Ms. Bramson's statement pertained to both major types of government and she responded just the council-manager form because in a strong mayor government the understanding is clear the mayor will bring in his own staff. Member Hamilton asked if the mayor-council form of government is typically partisan and Ms. Bramson responded this was usually the case. She said most of her work is in council-manager cities indicating she tends to lean in that direction. Member Smout referred to senior staff having a longer tenure in the council-manager form of government. Ms. Bramson responded hiring will involve national searches for filling department head positions. Member Smout asked how far down the ranks does the mayor appoint in the mayor-council form. Ms. Bramson said this would depend on the personnel system. She said often it goes to the department head and maybe a layer below. Member Salmon felt the three levels created by the mayor/council form of government, a mayor, a council and an administrator, would create more problems. Member Evich asked if the mayor-council form of government is more expensive to operate. He asked if there are other cities that have changed to the mayor-council form and if their costs have escalated in terms of salaries and staff. Ms. Bramson said she has heard this is the case and felt more research is needed. She referred to Jim Svara, North Carolina State University whose field is in these two major forms of government and how they operate; she also mentioned George Fredrickson, University of Kansas. Member Seel asked if there is now a trend starting across the United States toward the mayor-council form of government. Ms. Bramson responded there has been increased talk regarding this by the larger jurisdictions that have had the council-manager form of government, such as Dallas. However, the statistics show a continued increase in the number of cities that have council-manager form. Chairman Figurski noted the International City Managers Association has indicated that out of all new governmental units formed in cities, 99.9 percent is the council-manager form. Member Salmon asked if there has been any indication what is in is not working and we should try something different. Ms. Bramson said when we encounter frustration, sometimes it is easier to change structure avoiding the real issues. Member Hamilton pointed out when the City of St. Petersburg changed to the mayor-council form, there was a situation of turmoil; however, he said he would not classify Clearwater at that level of turmoil. He said there have been changes over the past year with the Commission that might raise these issues in the eyes of the public. He felt we need to look at whether the form of government or what is before the government is the issue. Member Lijewski noted the position of City Commissioner has turned into a full time job. Member Lancaster said in his opinion the average citizen in Clearwater is not as frustrated as the Commissioner. He felt there were problems the Commission needed to resolve amongst themselves. Member Evich said the Commissioners have been asking the hard questions that maybe have not been asked in the past. He asked if the political power is diffused, how do single member districts become meaningful. Ms. Bramson said those who are critics of the council-manager form have said the predominance of single member districts have caused council members to become more focused and connected to their district and forming a consensus on the council has become more difficult. She pointed out what has been seen over the last decade with single member districts are more diverse candidates, minorities and women. She felt single member districts bring more of a focus on districts and neighborhoods. Member Seel asked what the ideal number of Commissioners would be for a city the size of Clearwater and Ms. Bramson said she did not feel she could respond. Member Salmon felt single member districts were going to be an issue and asked if there was anyone that could be recommended to speak on the pros and cons. Ms. Bramson mentioned Lee Moffitt and Susan McManus, professor at the University of South Florida. Member Rivers asked if Hillsborough is a single member district and Ms. Bramson responded it was. It was noted Clearwater has a system in place that requires a simple majority at two consecutive meetings to remove the city manager. It was questioned if this is typical and Ms. Bramson responded it was very typical. Ms. Bramson distributed an article on the structure of municipal governments. Member Salmon suggested starting at the beginning of the charter and working through it with the last 30-45 minutes of each meeting being spent inputting ideas for the next meeting. Member Lancaster felt the form of government needs to be resolved first. Member Evich agreed indicating there are also a lot of major issues and policies that need to be discussed. Member Hamilton agreed and felt the committee could meet the Commission's deadline for finishing their review; however, said the issues need to be brought out. He noted if the form of government is changed, the charter will need to be rewritten. Member Evich questioned how the rewrite would impact staff's workload and it was indicated a major amount of time would be spent in rewriting and it would still need to go to the Commission for their approval. Member Evich wondered if it would be appropriate to poll the Commissioners to see what their feelings are regarding form of government. Member Salmon asked whether it was premature to get the committee's views on form of government. Member Hamilton found this to be a good idea; however, said he would like to first review all the information he has received. Member Lijewski said he has a strong predisposition of staying with the present council form assuming he does not find something to change his mind. The majority of the committee agreed. Chairman Figurski asked those of the committee who have not distributed their list of issues to send them to Sue Diana who will forward them to the Chairman. He said he will then prioritize the issues and bring them forward. Member Evich noted the majority consensus of the committee was to stay with the current form of government and asked their input as to what might change their minds. Member Lijewski said he liked the Commission spending more time like they are currently doing. He felt their salaries should be increased. He liked the accountability and felt there were no political attachments. Member Lancaster felt the City of Clearwater is well run, the majority of the citizens are satisfied and the services are good. Member Hamilton said the system is not as broken as the political situation or the press make it out to be. He said he likes a continuity of staff. He felt a mayor-council form of government would create job changes and would create turmoil. Member Salmon cited the federal government as an example of why he did not support a mayor-council form of government. He said it is not the system but the people who work in the system that make the difference. Chairman Figurski felt a decision regarding form of government should not be made until citizen input is solicited. Member Smout said he has been a resident of Clearwater for 17 years and is comfortable with the current form of government. He said the City has a good financial record. He felt the system was based upon the quality of people. He expressed concern in one person having a disproportionate amount of power. Member Salmon said he would like to obtain some information on single member districts. Chairman Figurski requested the Florida League of Cities be contacted for a survey of cities as to the forms of government. Discussion of Meeting Times Discussion ensued in regard to meeting times as Member Hamilton had a conflict with Thursday nights. Meetings were scheduled for Wednesday, February 23, 1994, Wednesday, March 2, 1994 (public hearing); Tuesday, March 15, 1994, and Tuesday, April 26, 1994 at 7:00 p.m.; and Wednesday, April 6, 1994, at 4:00 p.m. There was discussion regarding how the Commission will view and handle the Charter Review Committee's recommendation regarding form of government if they are looking to go in another direction. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Chairman Attest: