The idea behind the council-manager form of city government is to produce a system that combines the political leadership of elected officials with the strong managerial experience of an appointed professional local government manager. The idea behind this system is that the councilmembers set the policy and the city manager carries out the policy. This is one of the fastest growing forms of city government in this country.
However does it place too much power in the hands of an unelected bureaucracy? Does it infringe on the rights of minority members of the council?
This is a key point, because the council is in this model a legislative body whose members are the decision makers. Power is supposed to centralized in the elected council, which makes policy and approves the budget. The manager is appointed by council to carry out policy. If the manager is not responsive to the council’s wishes, the council has authority to terminate the manager at any time. In that sense, a manager’s responsiveness is tested daily. However, that responsiveness is only required of a majority of the council, because the minority lacks the power and numbers to vote to remove a city manager.
What we see in Davis are several problems that are a direct result of the structural system of government.
The councilmembers have no office space. This may seem like a small point, but the unelected city staff each have their own office space where they perform their work. If someone needs them, they can come see them or call them and leave a message. Now the city council has no such space. Space is power. If a city councilmember needs to meet with the staff, they must do so in the staff’s office. That provides the staff member with an advantage. The councilmember must seek out the staff member rather than vice versa. Imagine your boss having to come into your office rather than you having to go into your boss’ office. Imagine your boss having to seek you out rather than you having to seek them out. This displaces authority.
Along the same lines, the city staff is well paid whereas the city council is paid $500 per month. So again, the power is transferred away from the council who are treated as volunteers and towards the professional staff.
Moreover, the council shares staff resources—they are not allocated their own staffer. What that means is several things. First, the councilmembers do not have staff that is responsible and responsive only to them. Rather the staff is responsible to the city manager and their own department. Second, if you are a member of the council minority, the city staff has been non-responsive to council minority knowing that they do not hold control over who is hired and who is fired. What has happened is that minority members often do not get responses from staff and they then have to track them down. This is the opposite of what it should be.
As we saw with Councilmember Heystek’s proposed living wage ordinance, the council majority was able to prevent staff from working on that proposal. That meant that a city councilmember elected by the voters of Davis just as the council majority members are, had to on his own non-paid time, do the legwork needed to prepare the agenda item. That is a fundamental disenfranchisement of a sizable segment of the Davis of the population and that is a direct result of the council-manager system. Had Heystek had his own staff this would not have happened.
The question that now comes to mind is whether or not the city of Davis has ceded too much power to unelected staff members. Staff obviously serves at the pleasure of the council majority. And that means that staff reports—which again—the members rely on for the bulk of their information are tailored the needs and preferences of the council majority. The recommendations tend to take the side of the developers and the political establishment.
The council minority members are then forced to rely on these reports to make their decisions. We saw this play out fully when then Mayor Pro Tem Sue Greenwald took issue with the staff report estimating revenue from a proposed Target. She had to specifically go back through the report with staff to get them to re-figure their estimates based on different assumptions—one of those being the difference between Target and an alternative development on the same site as opposed to a vacant field—and when she went through those numbers at one point the staffer clarified that he did not agree with this assessment. Again, that’s a tremendous amount of power placed in the hands on a non-elected city staffer and at the expense of an elected public official.
So while it may be true that there are advantages to the council-manager style of city government, there are some severe drawbacks particularly in a sharply divided council whose divisions are rather bitter and divisive.
Davis should begin to ask the question as to whether or not this form of government serves its needs or whether we should go to a more professionalized city council. I would argue that we have gone too far and placed too much power in the unelected city staff. I think we pay our councilmembers far too little for the job that they do. Councilmembers basically have nearly a full time job and they are paid what amounts to a monthly stipend. Councilmembers should have their own staffer who can prepare reports and do research as they see fit. And councilmembers at the very least should have their own office space. In short, I think there are some severe shortcomings in this model that disadvantage elected councilmembers, particularly those in the minority.
---Doug Paul Davis reporting
However does it place too much power in the hands of an unelected bureaucracy? Does it infringe on the rights of minority members of the council?
This is a key point, because the council is in this model a legislative body whose members are the decision makers. Power is supposed to centralized in the elected council, which makes policy and approves the budget. The manager is appointed by council to carry out policy. If the manager is not responsive to the council’s wishes, the council has authority to terminate the manager at any time. In that sense, a manager’s responsiveness is tested daily. However, that responsiveness is only required of a majority of the council, because the minority lacks the power and numbers to vote to remove a city manager.
What we see in Davis are several problems that are a direct result of the structural system of government.
The councilmembers have no office space. This may seem like a small point, but the unelected city staff each have their own office space where they perform their work. If someone needs them, they can come see them or call them and leave a message. Now the city council has no such space. Space is power. If a city councilmember needs to meet with the staff, they must do so in the staff’s office. That provides the staff member with an advantage. The councilmember must seek out the staff member rather than vice versa. Imagine your boss having to come into your office rather than you having to go into your boss’ office. Imagine your boss having to seek you out rather than you having to seek them out. This displaces authority.
Along the same lines, the city staff is well paid whereas the city council is paid $500 per month. So again, the power is transferred away from the council who are treated as volunteers and towards the professional staff.
Moreover, the council shares staff resources—they are not allocated their own staffer. What that means is several things. First, the councilmembers do not have staff that is responsible and responsive only to them. Rather the staff is responsible to the city manager and their own department. Second, if you are a member of the council minority, the city staff has been non-responsive to council minority knowing that they do not hold control over who is hired and who is fired. What has happened is that minority members often do not get responses from staff and they then have to track them down. This is the opposite of what it should be.
As we saw with Councilmember Heystek’s proposed living wage ordinance, the council majority was able to prevent staff from working on that proposal. That meant that a city councilmember elected by the voters of Davis just as the council majority members are, had to on his own non-paid time, do the legwork needed to prepare the agenda item. That is a fundamental disenfranchisement of a sizable segment of the Davis of the population and that is a direct result of the council-manager system. Had Heystek had his own staff this would not have happened.
The question that now comes to mind is whether or not the city of Davis has ceded too much power to unelected staff members. Staff obviously serves at the pleasure of the council majority. And that means that staff reports—which again—the members rely on for the bulk of their information are tailored the needs and preferences of the council majority. The recommendations tend to take the side of the developers and the political establishment.
The council minority members are then forced to rely on these reports to make their decisions. We saw this play out fully when then Mayor Pro Tem Sue Greenwald took issue with the staff report estimating revenue from a proposed Target. She had to specifically go back through the report with staff to get them to re-figure their estimates based on different assumptions—one of those being the difference between Target and an alternative development on the same site as opposed to a vacant field—and when she went through those numbers at one point the staffer clarified that he did not agree with this assessment. Again, that’s a tremendous amount of power placed in the hands on a non-elected city staffer and at the expense of an elected public official.
So while it may be true that there are advantages to the council-manager style of city government, there are some severe drawbacks particularly in a sharply divided council whose divisions are rather bitter and divisive.
Davis should begin to ask the question as to whether or not this form of government serves its needs or whether we should go to a more professionalized city council. I would argue that we have gone too far and placed too much power in the unelected city staff. I think we pay our councilmembers far too little for the job that they do. Councilmembers basically have nearly a full time job and they are paid what amounts to a monthly stipend. Councilmembers should have their own staffer who can prepare reports and do research as they see fit. And councilmembers at the very least should have their own office space. In short, I think there are some severe shortcomings in this model that disadvantage elected councilmembers, particularly those in the minority.
---Doug Paul Davis reporting
