Laserfiche WebLink
LOCAL GOV~aIqM~NT STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION <br />PAGE 6 <br /> <br />PRO AND CONS OF COUNCIL-MANAGER FORM <br /> <br />The following are a number of frequently-cited arguments in favor of the council-manager <br />form: <br /> <br />There is a separation of policy development (council) and administration (manager). <br />The council is freed of administrative details and can devote more time to policy <br />making. <br /> <br />The manager plan recognizes the need for an expert in administration. Most city <br />managers have a background in public administration or management before <br />assuming their responsibilities. Elected politicians do not necessarily make good <br />administrators. <br /> <br />A manager can tightly control the city budget and the performance of employees. <br />A professional manager allows the city to be run in a more businesslike way. <br /> <br />When time-consuming administrative details have been given to a manager, <br />community leaders will be more easily induced to run for council thus ensuring a <br />more competent council. <br /> <br />,- Political conflicts of council members are less likely to impede governmental action. <br /> <br />Most cities are experiencing increas'.mg demands for service, which can better be. <br />handled by a manager and the administrative staff. <br /> <br />The following are some of the arguments against the council-manager form: <br /> <br />An appointed official should not be placed in the position of providing policy <br />leadership. The manager is appointed and therefore is not directly accountable to <br />the citizens for his or her actions. <br /> <br />It is dangerous to have all administration centered in one individual. The plan can <br />be dictatorial and undemocratic. <br /> <br />Because the manager has sole authority to hire and fire employees, the allegiance <br />of employees tends to be to the manager not to the council or citizens. <br /> <br />-68- <br /> <br /> <br />