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

operating department heads to provide protective cover for many services, e. g., boards of public works, health, parks, recreation and planning. The desire was. to prevent scandal, but the result was to diffuse responsibility. A New Municipal Program and a New Model Charter. In the same year ( 1900) that the League published its first Model City Charter, the reform agenda was affected by the aftermath of a tidal wave in Galveston, Texas. The special commission used to deal with that emergency evolved into the commission form of municipal government. The legislative and executive functions were merged in a commission. The ballot was shortened and separately elected and independent boards were eliminated. It became a popular reform in the early years of the century. There was pressure for the League to endorse the commission plan model. Then as now, however, the League rejected the commission plan because it fragmented the executive and permitted too little attention to policy development. The question was how to combine the " short ballot" result that characterized the commission plan with the integrated, responsible executive provided in the League' s first. model. The answer to this question was seen clearly by Richard S. Childs as he built on the short ballot principle that he had been espousing with Woodrow Wilson and others. He promoted the ingenious combination of experience in commission -governed cities and the basic organizational feature of private business -- the appointed chief executive officer. The Childs position was most persuasive in the deliberations of a new League Committee on Municipal Program, which was established in 1913 to review the first Model and other reform experience. The committee' s first report in 1914 endorsed what became known as the council - manager plan. In 1915 the League adopted a new municipal program presenting the second Model City Charter, which provided that all powers be vested in the council and that the V111 i d administration of the city's operations be by a city manager appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the council. The committee was not only convinced that the new form of government was sound in theory but was also able to observe it in operation in a few pioneering cities. The committee was unaware of a proposal made by the first secretary of the League of California Cities, Haven S. Mason, in 1899 for a " distinct profession of municipal managers" to administer the affairs of a city or the fact that the small town of Ukiah, California, in 1904 established the position of " executive officer," who was responsible to its governing body, to administer its activities. The committee was aware that beginning in 1908, Staunton, Virginia, had a general " city manager" serving a two -house council and sharing the executive function with the mayor. The first city to have a manager responsible to a single elected council was Sumter, South Carolina, in 1912. It was followed two years later by Dayton, Ohio, the first city of substantial size to adopt the plan. By the end of 1915, the council -manager plan had been adopted by 82 cities, with the number almost doubling by 1920. Unquestionably, the League made the important shift in its model charter from endorsement of an elected chief executive to advocacy of an appointed manager because of the conviction that the latter provided the most desirable arrangement for securing a responsible chief executive. In describing the 1915 Model, it was stated: " ... the most distinguishing characteristic of the form of city government advocated in the New Municipal Program is to be found in the concentration of administrative powers and responsibilities in the hands of a city manager ... declaring that the city manager shall be the chief executive of the city." It was clearly recognized, however, that the new Model rejected the " separation of powers" concept which characterized the national and state governments, stating: " The dominant note in our new Model City Charter is elimination of the system of checks and balances in the organization of our cities and the substitution therefor of responsible government under a small legislative chamber which in turn selects a single administrative head. The city manager plan not merely represents the type in common use in business corporations but also in parliamentary government." The Model has continued to endorse the unitary structure provided in the council -manager plan, although alternative approaches within this structure are now provided. Evolution of the Reform Agenda In addition to the provisions for the basic form of municipal government -- the legislative body and executive structure -- the Model has addressed other aspects of the reform agenda. Civil Service. The architects of the first two model charters included some of the leaders of the civil service reform movement. Indeed, the chairman of the committee that developed the 1915 Model was William Dudley Foulke, who served as a member of the U.S. Civil Service Commission under Theodore Roosevelt and was president of the National Civil Service Reform League. Thus, it is not surprising that the early models contained detailed provisions for municipal civil service systems, including an independent civil service commission with extensive rule making authority with respect to " the appointment, promotion, transfer, layoff, ix  i A reinstatement, suspension, and removal of city officials and employees ... [ and the duty] to Owl supervise the execution of the civil service sections [ of the charter] and the rules made thereunder...." The manner in which municipal personnel organization and procedure are treated in the successive editions of the Model Cite, Charter ( 1900, 19151 1927, 1933, 1941, 19641 1989, and 2002) shows how the reform agenda evolved during the 20th century. From the first two editions with an independent civil service commission, the Model moved in 1927 to an organization with a personnel director appointed by the city manager and a personnel board with limited powers. This was the approach followed in the 1933 and 1941 editions, but the provisions continued to be extremely detailed, covering classification procedures, promotions, pay plans, pensions and retirement systems.Notes accompanying these provisions indicated that some advisors were even then urging greater simplicity. This was done in the 1964 edition, which contained only a listing of the elements of personnel rules, restricted the personnel board to an advisory role, and recommended that details of personnel organization and procedure should be included in the administrative code. The Model now recognizes that personnel systems in some states are controlled in large part by state law and. everywhere are subject to certain federal regulations. The charter simply states a commitment to the merit principle and mandates the council to provide by ordinance for a personnel system based on the merit system and consistent with state and federal law. Thus, the Model's treatment of municipal personnel administration has evolved from prescribing in detail an organization and procedures concerned with the elimination of spoils to a general and flexible provision permitting the city to provide by ordinance an adaptable system that will increase the competence of the public service in meeting changing needs. Planning. Treatment of planning in the Model CitY Charter has had a somewhat different evolution. In early editions the provisions were quite general, with new sections on zoning and other detailed aspects of planning not being added until 1927. The 1941 edition had the most detailed planning provisions, continuing to call for an independent planning commission with specific powers but with the planning director appointed by the city manager rather than by the commission. There were provisions for the master plan, official map, subdivision control, plat approval, zoning, slum clearance, blighted areas, housing, neighborhood redevelopment and disaster areas. By 1964 the approach was substantially changed, with the Model indicating that planning should be considered preeminently a staff function tied directly to the city's executive, with the planning board's role being exclusively advisory. Further, it was indicated that planning policy is finally expressed and carried out by the council through various enactments. The Model did continue to provide procedures for adoption, modification and implementation of the comprehensive plan. The 1989 Model recognized that land use development and environmental protection are increasingly the subject of regulation by state and federal statutes. This continues to be the case. In order to permit the municipality the greatest possible flexibility to carry out the planning x function effectively, the Model does not provide for a specific structure. The city council is mandated to establish the planning organization and procedures. The eighth edition emphasizes the importance of integrating municipal planning with the planning of other local jurisdictions and regional agencies. Finance. The Model's treatment of financial procedures has undergone an evolution from relatively simple prescriptions in the early editions to highly detailed and restrictive procedures in 1941 and back to much simpler procedures in recent and current editions. The 1941 edition was closer in time to the local government financial crises in the 1930s. Its provisions seemed overly rigid and unnecessarily complicated to those developing the next edition 20 years later, when economic conditions and fiscal procedures in local governments were substantially improved. The 1964 edition emphasized importance of developing a comprehensive the financial program and maximum flexibility within the boundaries of sound fiscal practices. The 1989 edition made only minor modifications, clarifying some procedures and taking note of the need to provide for revenue ordinances covering non -property tax revenues. The eighth edition further clarifies financial procedures, renaming the relevant article " Financial Management." The provision for an independent audit, previously found in Article II dealing with the city council now appears in Article V with new emphasis. The Model places attention on long -term goals and community priorities in the budget process and the importance of methods to measure outcomes and performance. Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. The enthusiasm for some reform measures has varied over time. Provisions for the initiative, referendum, and recall were first included in 1915. Initiative and referendum have been provided in all subsequent editions of the Model but support for their inclusion has been far from