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
success they have then lost interest. They have not <br />realized that change for the sake of change is not enough. <br />Constant interest and cooperation is essential. Like every <br />other political structure the council-manager plan is not <br />self-operating. <br /> <br /> What, then, have been the results of the <br />council-manager plan? Many of its proponents have claimed <br />that it will reduce taxes. This has not usually been <br />demonstrable. On the other hand, and generally speaking, <br />citizens have received much greater value for every tax <br />dollar. General consensus of impartial observers is that <br />the council-manager plan has reduced waste, lowered unit <br />costs, improved administrative organization, fostered <br />better personnel practice, given more expert <br />administration, improved the city's public relations, and <br />placed the city government in a more vital role.' <br /> <br /> In summary, the manager needs the community as much <br />as the community needs the manager. The plan gives any <br />city the opportunity for better government, if citizens <br />realize what the plan can do and give it constant .support. <br />If this support is not likely to be forthcoming and the <br />spirit of the manager plan is not respected, advisability <br />of adopting the plan at all is open to serious question. <br /> <br />IV. <br /> <br />Adgptions and Abandonments of the Council-Manage~ <br /> <br />Plan <br /> <br />A. ~n this United States* <br /> <br />A total of 83 cities, towns and other urban places were <br />added in 1964 to the number of local governments operating <br />under the council-manager plan. Of these 83 places, 41 <br />adopted the plan under home rule charters, optional state <br />law, or special act of the legislature; 21 adopted the plan <br />by ordinance and 21 had adoDted the plan in prior years. <br />This brings to 1,953 the total of places in the continental <br />United States that have the'council-manager plan, inclUding <br />places under 5,000 in population as well as those over that <br />figure. In addition, there are 340 council-appointed <br />administrators in the United States and Canadian <br />municipalities that are not recognized as operating under <br />the council-manager plan. <br /> <br /> Of the 60 referendums held in 1964, 42, or 70%, <br />resulted in the adoption of the council-manager plan by <br /> <br />*Information taken from ~h__e~_~D~_~p~_...~r..~og.~,.~.!~.9~., <br />International City Managers' Association, pp. 297-300. <br /> <br />-28- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.