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
6. EFFECT ON POLITICAL LEADERSHIP <br /> <br /> Opponents argue: The council-manager fprm provides <br />less adequate political leadership than the strong-mayor <br />plano The mayor has so little power that the office does <br />not attract men who would run for the office in a strong <br />mayor plan city. He cannot because of his position <br />dominate the council. Voters should have direct control <br />over those who make policy and, therefore, it is very <br />important that they directly elect the chief policy maker, <br />the chief executive. <br /> <br /> Proponents answer: The council, not the manager, <br />has complete power to make all policy decisions. <br />Furthermore, although in theory mayors give leadership on <br />municipal policies in strong mayor cities, in actual <br />practice many mayors are incapable of doing so or are not <br />allowed to do so because of political pressures. Effective <br />leadership under the council-manager plan can come from <br />council members. <br /> <br /> Furthermore, if this argument has any merit at all it <br />must be confined to comparisons between the council-manager <br />plan and the strong-mayor plan. Actually, however, there <br />is only one city. in Minnesota with a true strong-mayor plan <br />and it is much more realistic to compare the manager plan <br />with the weak-mayor or commission plan, neither of which <br />provides as much opportunity for political leadership as <br />the manager plan does. In addition, it may be said that <br />the point is of practically no significance in the <br />average-sized community; the problem of political <br />leadership becomes important only in the larger cities. <br /> <br />7. GETTING AND KEEPING A MANAGER <br /> <br /> Opponents say5 It is difficult, if not impossible,. <br />for the smaller communities especially, to get a competent <br />manager. Furthermore, there is such a tendency for <br />managers to move on to greener pastures that a city will <br />spend much of its time in training managers only to have <br />them leave the service before returning to the community <br />the benefit of that training. <br /> <br /> Proponents answer: More and more universities are <br />g~ving training either in city management specifically or <br />in public administration generally and as the manager <br />movement grows, the supply of managers -- even managers <br />with experience -- will continue to grow. If an <br />e×perienced manager is not available, other persons of good <br />general qualifications and an aptitude for administration <br /> <br />-25- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.