My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Charter Commission - 04/21/2005
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Charter Commission
>
2005
>
Agenda - Charter Commission - 04/21/2005
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/28/2025 1:05:40 PM
Creation date
4/15/2005 3:26:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Charter Commission
Document Date
04/21/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
91
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
THE PROS AND CONS OF THE COUNCIL-MANAGER PLAN <br /> <br />[' W~ [~___~e Council-Manager Plan? <br /> <br /> The council-manager plan, the newest of the four <br />principal types of municipal government structure, has been <br />adopted by nearly 2,000 cities and villages in the United <br />States and this total is growing at an average rate of <br />about 50 municipalities a year. More than one-third of the <br />cities with populations of over 5,000 have managers. The <br />plan is especially popular in.the population range of <br />25,000 to 100,000. <br /> <br /> The basic features of the plan are as follows: The <br />citizens elect a council, usually at large. The council <br />then selects a chief executive -- known as a city manager <br />-- to be directly responsible to the council for all <br />administrative duties, including hiring and firing of <br />employees, supervision of all administrative departments <br />and the preparation and enforcement of the budget. The <br />manager has indefinite tenure and is subject to removal by <br />the council at will. All ceremonial duties devolve upon <br />the mayor, who also usually serves as president of the <br />council. <br /> <br /> Although details of the plan vary from city to city, <br />there is enough similarity to give a basis for argument <br />about the merits of the plan. The broad outline of the pro <br />and con positions is briefly sketched below. The arguments <br />assume a conventional council-manager plan in which there <br />are no independent boards and all of the administrative <br />responsibility devolves upon the manager with all policy <br />making entrusted to the council. <br /> <br />II. A_~rguments For and Against the Manager Plan. <br /> <br />l. RELATION OF POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION <br /> <br /> Proponents say: Policy formulation and- <br />administration are kept separate in the council-manager <br />plan. As a representative body the council is the proper <br />body to legislate. It is competent to form local policy. <br />But the plan gives to the manager duties, of carrying out <br />the council's policy. This separation preserves the <br />distinction between controlling the business of government <br />and actually doing it. Wrote John Stuart Mill, "The <br />business of the elective body is not to do the work but to <br />see that it is properly done, and that nothing necessarily <br />is left undone." The distinction is also preserved in <br />private business corporations and school district - <br />government, where there is both a board of directors and a <br />general manager (school superintendent). <br /> <br />-21- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.