|
merits; and thus he will sacrifice good aclministratlon
<br />to politics. A chief administrator chosen without
<br />regard to political considerations will not need to
<br />do this.
<br />
<br /> (5) All administrative officers should have inde-
<br />finite terms of office, but be subject to removal at
<br />any time by the appointing author!ty for reasons
<br />to be stated by him. A city eng!neer, for example,
<br />should not have a tenure of only a year of two, for
<br />as hegrows better acquainted with the city his value
<br />to it increases, and also his work will be better if he
<br />does not have to seek reappointment at short inter-
<br />vals. The chief administrator himself should have
<br />an indefinite term, but be removable at any time
<br />by the council.
<br />
<br /> (6) Official salaries should be honorable and
<br />adequate, worthy of the work to'be performed,
<br />but they should not be fixed in the charte~.
<br />
<br />The General Plan of the City Government
<br />
<br /> 105. Weak mayor-council plan. The greater
<br />number of cities in Minnesota are governed under
<br />the plan which is first to be described.8 It is un-
<br />necessary to name ali the cities in the state which
<br />have this scheme of things but it may be well to
<br />note that Ada, Alexandria, Arlington, and Biwabik,
<br />among the smaller cities, have this plan of organiza-
<br />tion and that Minneapolis also has it to a certain
<br />extent. This plan prevailed in practically ali the
<br />cities chartered by the legislature before 1892 and
<br />exists in all but a few of the statutory cities. Under
<br />this plan as embodied in home rule charters in
<br />Minnesota the mayor is little more than tile nomi-
<br />nal head of the city. He' often has charge of the
<br />police department, he is usually given the veto po-
<br />wer, in some cases he sits as a member of the coun-
<br />cil, and he is given certain ministerial po~ers. The
<br />council is the real governing body of the city. It
<br />makes all the ordinances, levies the taxes, passes
<br />the annual budget, appoints nearly all of the heads
<br />of departments, and actually conducts the adminis-
<br />tration of the city. In addition to the mayor and
<br />the council the people often elect a treasurer and
<br />sometimes a clerk, There may also be one or more
<br />boards as for example a board of health, a library
<br />board, a park board, and a board of water and light
<br />commissioners.
<br />
<br /> It is sometimes a~gued that placing only the
<br />police department under the mayor has the advan-
<br />
<br />rage of separating tile pohce question from all
<br />others in the municipal campaign The mayor is
<br />primarily a pohce officer and runs on a platform of
<br />strict law enforcement or "wide open town." The
<br />disadvantages of this plan clearly are that it keeps
<br />the police question always in politics, since the
<br />mayor has very little else upon which to base his
<br />candidacy. The city council, not having charge of
<br />the police, feels little responsibility for that depart-
<br />ment and very often fails to appropriate enough
<br />money for it. The voters are usually deluded into
<br />th,nking that the office of mayor is a very impor-
<br />tant one-and they permit most of their attention at
<br />the' time of election to be distract:ed by the mayor-
<br />alty campaign As amatter of fact, when the mayor
<br />gets into office they find that he can do little for
<br />them. Among the different departments und~;~' the
<br />council there is little cooperation since in this plan
<br />the council does not appoint a single manager for
<br />municipal affairs but rather appoints a clerk, an
<br />engineer, a fire chief, a building inspector, astreet
<br />commissioner, a board of health, and perhaps other
<br />separate and independent officers. Legislative and
<br />administrative functions are not separated, The
<br />council not only raises the money but spends it as.
<br />well.
<br />
<br /> 106. Strong mayor or federal plan. Among the
<br />larger cities in the country, the tendency in recent
<br />years has been towards what is called the strong
<br />mayor or federal plan of city government? The
<br />plan is equally applicable 1o small cities. Thus we
<br />find that the cities of Cannon Falls, Duluth, North-
<br />field, St. Cloud and St. Paul among others in this
<br />state have this plan which separates the legislative
<br />from the administrative powers of the city, and
<br />centralizes'the' administrative $~ork in the mayor,
<br />This is, of course, similar- to the plan of the federal
<br />government. Under this scheme of things the mayor
<br />is m reality the executive head of the city. The of-
<br />fice of mayor becomes an importa.ht one and it is
<br />hoped that abler men wili be at~racted to it as they
<br />see the possibilities of public service in it. The
<br />mayor is empowered to appoint, and to direct the
<br />work of, al! or practically all of the department
<br />heads. He is given the power- to prepare and to sub-
<br />mit to the council the annual budget. He also has
<br />the ~,eto power. The council, on the other hand, is
<br />restricted to legislation It may not interfere with
<br />the.administration though it may co~trol the ad-
<br />ministration to some extent through ordinances
<br />and through the passage of the annual budget.
<br />
<br />8See the diagram of this plan in the League mem-
<br /> orandum "Four' General Types of Government
<br /> Structure In Use In American Cities," 390e.7.
<br />
<br />-4-
<br />
<br />9See the diagram of th,s plan in League memoran-
<br /> dum on "Four General Types of Government:
<br /> Structure In Use In American Cities," 390e.7.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|