Fort Walton Beach Council agenda — 09-16-08 workshop agenda — reading text

decisions to assure equitable representation of racial. minorities. Therefore, the all- district alternative is included in the article on elections and a special wF emphasis is given to districting criteria and procedures. The proportional representation alternative is continued. Concern for representation of minorities and the possibility of technological improvements that will simplify the voting process have renewed interest in proportional representation. 1V Whatever the alternative used to determine the composition of the council, the wide use of the council -manager plan has emphasized the central importance of the municipal council in local government. The basic principle that the executive is appointed by and responsible to the council has meant that particular attention is given to the composition of the council when local charters are under review. The Mayor. The basic theory of the council- manager plan, which rejects the separation of powers concept with powers divided between the council and an elected chief executive, has been ambivalent on the role of the mayor in council- manager cities. Beginning in 1915, the Model City Chanter provided that the mayor would be chosen by and from the council and would be the presiding officer of the council and head of the city for ceremonial purposes and for purposes of military law. No consideration was given to the role of the mayor as a policy leader. The 1964 edition recognized that in practice more than half of the council -manager cities had mayors elected directly by the voters. A direct election alternative was provided, but the preference for election by council was continued. The 1964 commentary on the mayor did take notice of the policy leadership role of the mayor and cited the fact that many mayors elected by the council -- the preferred model -- had provided dynamic leadership. One such mayor was Murray Seasongood of Cincinnati, who in the early 1960s said, " I am on record over the years as believing that the mayor should be a person of real importance in the council -manager plan and is as essential to its proper operation as is the manager.... The emphasis should be on giving the mayor greater stature than he now possesses in the ordinary council -manager government." This edition of the model charter emphasizes the need to further clarify the role of the mayor. It specifies certain duties of the non -executive mayor that are entirely consistent with the basic concept of the council -manager plan. The office is quite different from that of the elected chief executive in a system that separates executive and legislative powers. Rather, the mayor in the council- manager form is the chief legislator, the leader of the policy making team. This mayor can be a " strong" mayor who, not having to overcome the offsetting power of the council or not being bogged down with the details of managing the city's staff, can focus on facilitative leadership. The mayor is effective by helping the council and staff perform better. High involvement by the council and the manager and constructive relationships among officials are indicators of successful leadership by the mayor. Effectiveness does not mean charting an independent path or taking over tasks from the manager. The new Model also specifically addresses the importance of strong political leadership and the potential for such leadership by the mayor in council -manager cities. This is based on three premises. First, relationships among officials in council- manager cities are cooperative rather than contentious because powers are not divided among officials. Second, this approach to mayoral leadership stresses the contributions of all officials rather than focusing on the mayor as the driving force in city government. Third, the potential for mayoral leadership is inherent in the council - manager form so long as the office is not actually hamstrung by arbitrary limitations. The mayor occupies a strategic location shaped by his or her close relationships with the council, manager, and individual citizens and groups in the community. The mayor is able to promote communications among officials and with the public. Unusual powers are not needed for leadership and may actually curtail leadership by separating the mayor from other officials. Any augmentation of the role of the mayor must not be construed as reducing the power of the council but rather as a way to provide v focus and leadership in the development of city policy. Nor should the role of the mayor intrude on the management of the city's operations by the manager. The Model presents two alternative methods for choosing the mayor without stating a preference: direct election by the voters and election by and from the council. Communities are advised to YA- consider the local situation in choosing between the two alternatives, determining which would be most conducive to the development of strong political leadership and effective professional administration. Looking Ahead of the undertaken with the recognition that most The latest revision model charter was municipalities now operate in a regional context that makes intergovernmental cooperation a necessity. This understanding led members of the revision committee to specify that along with his or her other duties the city manager should encourage regional and intergovernmental cooperation. A greater role for citizen participation in local governance has also been emphasized in the new model. While a time will certainly come for this edition to be revised in turn, there is no doubt that it ensures continuity with the purposes of the Model City Charter even as it recommends changes to meet the challenges of a new century. vi  MODEL BUILDING: A CONTINUING PROCESS The influence of the Model City Charter, direct and indirect, can be measured in the ever- increasing use of the form of government it advocates. When it was proposed that the National Municipal League ( League) endorse the council- manager plan as its model form, fewer than 50 cities had adopted the plan; by 2002 the number exceeded 3, 000. Hundreds more communities operate with essential features of the plan, particularly the provision of responsible professional management. It has always been made quite clear that the model is not an absolute. It must be tailored to fit local circumstances, traditions, and legal restraints, and features of it may be used to strengthen governments, even those that do not follow the basic council -manager form. The Model City Charter through its several editions has been the product of many minds and has reflected an enormous diversity of experience and preferences. It has always been informed by x an abiding and unanimous commitment to the strengthening of self government - in America. The Beginning The publication of this new edition of the Model is the latest stage in the continuing process that began in 1894 with the establishment of the League. At the conclave that launched the organization,Theodore Roosevelt told his fellow founders, the leaders of municipal reform: There are two gospels I always preach to reformers.... The first is the gospel of morality; the next is the gospel of efficiency.... I don't have to tell you to be upright, but I do think I have to tell you to be practical and efficient...." These 1894 reformers agreed that to be practical and efficient" more was required than Roosevelt' s exhortation for the " vindication of public virtue and popular rights of conscience and duty in public life...." They had a determination " to change the conditions which prevent good government [ and] to simplify the machinery which interferes with free expression and practical enforcement of the intelligent will of the majority" ( Horace E. Deming, City Club of New York). This group of farsighted leaders was clearly focused on the new century just ahead. They knew that they must develop a method for addressing not only the immediate crisis in city government but also a means for giving systematic attention to the fundamental elements in the machinery of local government. Thus began the process of model building that has endured for over a century. The " elements of a model charter for American cities" were first laid out by Edmund Janes James, then a University of Pennsylvania political scientist and later the president of the University of Illinois. He emphasized that " a model city charter must be ...adapted to local and temporal conditions... That scheme of government is the ideal one ... which under any given set of conditions makes the working of good influence easy and of bad influence hard -- a form of government under which all the excellences of which a people or community is capable in a political sense can be realized ... a city charter should give the people of the city the greatest degree of self determination, - both as to the form of government and as to the things which the government shall do...." vii  LIA d The First Model City Charter In 1897 a committee of distinguished scholars and civic reformers was given the task of embodying " the essential principles that must underlie developing a municipal program successful municipal government and ... set forth a working plan or system ... for putting such principles into practical operation...." In 1899 the committee reported its recommendations, which were published in 1900 as A Model Municipal Program. It included a proposed state constitutional amendment defining the relation of the municipality to the state and a model charter in the form of "a municipal corporations act." This first Model City Charter called for a council elected for six -year staggered terms, a strong, elected chief executive system with very extensive powers assigned to the mayor, including appointment of all major municipal officials except the comptroller) without advice and consent of the council. An independent civil service commission and civil service regulations were also recommended. The recommendation of a strong elected executive was such a drastic departure from prevailing practice that it gained little acceptance. Indeed, there not only was an unwillingness to entrust such extensive powers to a mayor but there were also strong movements to interpose boards or commissions between the executive and the