http://www2.icma.org/pm/8503/gates.htm
2003
Renewing
the Model
City
Charter:
The
Making of the Eighth Edition
Christopher T. Gates and Robert Loper
The
National Civic League (NCL) will publish the eighth edition of the Model City
Charter in the spring of 2003. The newly revised charter addresses critical
issues confronting local governments today and stresses the role of citizen
participation in public life. The decision to update the charter evinces NCL’s continuing dedication to its historic mission of
fostering good government at the local level.
In 1899, the National Municipal League (as NCL was
originally named) approved the first Model City Charter, which has been revised
periodically to help cities and their citizens improve the structures and
procedures of local government.
Revision of the model charter is not an automatic
process. It is undertaken when a judgment is made, with the advice of experts
in the field, that circumstances have so changed that
the model must be updated to ensure that it continues to provide reliable
guidance on the relationship between the structure of local government and its
performance.
In fact, taken overall, the changes in the Model
City Charter over the years present a history of reflection on how cities
should be structured to best achieve the goals of efficiency, effectiveness,
and equity. Although created under the auspices of NCL, the Model City Charter
has from its inception been the result of the combined efforts of leading
thinkers and practitioners in the area of municipal administration.
The
Need for a City Charter
Before detailing the significant changes made in
this newest edition of the model charter, let’s consider charters and their
impact on government performance. Some readers may find this topic esoteric.
Fortunately, though, in Martin Scorsese’s film “Gangs
of New York,” we have a wonderful cinematic illustration of the turbulence of
urban governance in the mid-19th century and thus of the impetus for the reform
movement that sought to ensure accountable and professional city government. To
anyone who has seen this movie, we think it will come as no surprise that New York was the first home of the National Municipal League.
The events that Scorsese portrays occurred roughly
in the middle third of the 19th century. The later history of New York politics, up to the founding of the National Municipal
League in 1894, saw the consolidation of rule by political machine evident in
nascent form in the film.
During this time, city government was weak and
corrupt, and provision for public order was erratic. Volunteer fire companies
routinely fought each other while fires burned, and looters took advantage of
this disarray. Patronage, graft, bribery, and outright thuggery
and violence were the order of the day. Herbert Asbury, author of the book that
inspired Scorsese (and gave him the title of his movie) reports that in 1855
gang leaders could draw on some 30,000 individuals. By rioting at polling
places and stuffing ballot boxes, gangs doing the bidding of political bosses
were instrumental in seizing and maintaining political power.
The fascinating and undeniably violent history of
this period is too little known among us today. While any number of examples would
illustrate our general point concerning the role of effective charters as means
of improving city government, a vignette about the police force in New York City during this period merits mention here.
Corruption within the police force was so bad that
in 1857 the state legislature abolished the municipal police force and
appointed a metropolitan board to enforce the law in a district encompassing Manhattan, Brooklyn, Staten Island, and other places (this of course was before greater New York City, encompassing the five boroughs, was constituted). The
mayor of New York, however, refused to disband the municipal force, and on
June 16, rioting broke out between the Municipals and the Metropolitans, as the
two police forces were known.
The feud continued throughout the summer, and
according to Asbury, members of the rival forces interfered with one another’s
attempts to make arrests, letting the would-be prisoners go in the process.
Aldermen and magistrates supportive of one side would remain in police stations
controlled by the other so that they could release prisoners on their own
recognizance.
This situation was clearly a far cry from today’s
professional and accountable administration of municipal affairs. These unruly
conditions and the consequent corruption via political machines helped fuel the
energies of the reform movement, which resulted in the forming of the National
Municipal League and the development of the Model City Charter.
The Model City Charter has always been the result of the combined efforts
of leading thinkers and practitioners in the area of municipal administration.
Although a city charter by itself cannot ensure
good government, a well-designed charter can provide a structure that reduces
opportunities for corruption and mismanagement while reinforcing efficient and
responsible practices. The model charter has long served as a guide for charter
commissions, recommending particular arrangements and discussing the merits and
potential problems of a range of options for configuring municipal government.
The commentary that forms part of
the model charter not only helps clarify the charter’s provisions but also
draws attention to events and developments that might not warrant extended
treatment in the charter itself but that nonetheless have an important
influence on the problem-solving capacities of local government.
In the commentary sections of the new edition of
the model charter, particular attention is paid to the increasing salience of
regionalism, new information technologies, improvements in performance
measurement, citizen participation in public life, and the fostering of
interaction among neighborhoods.
Changes in the Model City Charter
In an article entitled “Possible Approaches to the
Model Charter Revision,” which was written before the most recent revision was
made, Jim Svara developed a useful typology for
thinking about how and why charter reform might be undertaken. He identified
four emphases that could guide model revision: innovation, advocacy,
conservation, and adaptation. (The entire article is available on the NCL Web
site at http://www.ncl.org/npp/charter/articles/possible_approaches.html)
Professor Svara, who was
a senior adviser to the charter revision committee for the eighth edition,
heads the department of political science and public administration at North Carolina State University. In his article, he pinpointed the approach taken by each
of the past editions of the model charter to these four emphases. (For a fuller
treatment of changes in the Model City Charter over time, see H. George
Frederickson et al., “How American City Governments Have Changed: The Evolution
of the Model City Charter,” National Civic Review, Vol. 90, No. 1, pp.
3–18).
Svara went on to suggest that the new edition of the model
charter should take into account the different needs of three types of
potential users. The first type would be localities adopting a charter for the
first time and needing basic information on government structures and
performance. The second type would be a locality that might be looking to
revise its existing charter to better address special circumstances it faced.
Such local governments require a more sophisticated assessment of alternatives
and tradeoffs among possible choices, Svara wrote.
And the third type of user would be a municipality
interested in more encompassing processes of community governance than can be
specified within the provisions of a city charter. This interest was, and is,
of particular concern to NCL, and the eighth edition of the model charter is
intended to contribute to this wider discourse on citizen participation and
community governance.
City Council
Unsurprisingly, the preference for the
council-manager form of government has been retained in the new edition of the
model charter, although the discussion of the mayor-council form has been
greatly expanded. The model does not advance a preferred method for electing
the council but does stress anew the value of at-large elections. In keeping
with the seventh edition, the eighth edition recognizes that the use of
single-member districts remains popular for selecting councilmembers
as a means of ensuring compliance with the Voting Rights Act, and the benefits
of the mixed form (combining at-large and single-member elections) are
highlighted.
Given the technological developments that have made
proportional representation and instant runoff voting less complicated than
before, and the more widespread interest in these voting procedures, the new
edition contains an extensive consideration of these alternatives in the
commentary on the elections section. (Last year, San Francisco became the nation’s first major city to adopt the instant
runoff method for selecting the mayor and other top office-holders.)
City Manager
A new emphasis is given to recognizing the
professionalism of the city manager. The preexisting phrase “[t]he city manager
shall be appointed solely on the basis of executive and administrative
qualifications” has been changed to “. . . appointed solely on the basis of
education and experience in the accepted competencies and practices of local
public management.” To clarify the intent of this change, the International
City/County Management Association’s minimum qualification for a city manager
has been inserted into the commentary:
A master’s degree with a concentration in public
administration, public affairs, or public policy and two years’ experience in
an appointed managerial or administrative position in a local government or a
bachelor’s degree and five years of such experience.
A new emphasis on promoting long-term goals,
regional and intergovernmental cooperation, and greater citizen participation
is exemplified by the addition of the following tasks to the duties of the city
manager:
- Assist
the council to develop long-term goals for the city and strategies to
implement these goals.
- Encourage
and provide staff support for regional and intergovernmental cooperation.
- Promote
partnerships among council, staff, and citizens in developing public
policy and building a sense of community.
Mayor
In one of the most significant changes found in the
new edition, a different approach has been taken to the role of the mayor in
the mayor-council form of government. Commentary on this form remains in an
appendix, but instead of simply addressing the strong mayor-council form alone,
the eighth edition presents a choice between two options and provides a set of
analytical questions to help guide deliberations in cities that prefer to use
the mayor-council form.
The two options 1) are the traditional strong mayor
form, with a clear separation of powers between the mayor and the council; and
2) the standard mayor form, with both a separation of powers and a sharing of
authority between the mayor and the council. One of the key differences between
these two options, of course, involves the role and status of the chief
administrative officer (CAO).
In the strong mayor form, the mayor fulfills the
functions performed by the city manager in the council-manager form. If there
is a CAO, he or she is appointed and removed by the mayor alone. By contrast,
in the standard mayor form, the CAO is nominated by the mayor and approved by
the council and can be removed by the mayor. The two mayor-council options are
distinguished in shorthand reference as “mayor-CAO-council” and
“mayor-council-CAO,” respectively.
The analytical questions used to frame deliberation
are “how should authority be divided between the mayor
and the council” and “should a chief administrative officer be appointed.” Of
these two alternatives, the model charter expresses a clear preference for the
mayor-council-CAO option. Regardless of the choice made between the strong and
the standard mayor approach, the appointment of a CAO is recommended.
Initiatives,
Citizen Referendums, and Recalls
The eighth edition incorporates initiative,
referendum, and recall procedures into the provisions of the model charter.
This decision was made for a number of reasons. For one, the inclusion of these
elements simply acknowledges the fact that they are contained in the vast
majority of charters in operation today. But these procedures were an important
aspect of the reform movement of the early 20th century, and while the model
charter shows a clear preference for relying on the established practices of
representative government for day-to-day decision making, committee members
decided that it was important to preserve these options as part of the overall
armory of governing mechanisms.
This summary has covered only some of the changes
made to the model charter. For a fuller discussion, scroll though the NCL Web
site at http://www.ncl.org/
to the point where the complete text of the charter and the commentary are
posted.
Participants in the Model Charter Revision
The revision project was truly an inclusive
venture. The committee in charge of writing the eighth edition comprised a
diverse set of individuals and representatives from all major organizations
with an interest in the revision of the charter. The organizations represented
were the American Bar Association, American Society for Public Administration,
Association of State Municipal Leagues, International City/County Management
Association, International Municipal Lawyers Association, International
Personnel Management Association, League of Women Voters, National Academy of Public
Administration, National Association of Counties, National Association of
Schools of Public Affairs and Administration, and National League of Cities.
Involvement of leading academic experts in the
field of public administration has always been part of the history and
tradition of the charter revision process. This tradition was maintained in
this latest round through insightful contributions from Professors H. George
Frederickson, John Nalbandian, David Schulz, David
Sink, and Jim Svara.
Unsurprisingly, the preference
for the council-manager form of government has been retained in the new edition
of the model charter, although the discussion of the mayor-council form has
been greatly expanded.
NCL benefited enormously from the generous
commitment of time and talent by these individuals and organizations and wishes
to thank them all for their great contributions. We also want to make special
mention of the extraordinary leadership provided by the two chairs of the
committee, Betty Jane Narver and ICMA Executive
Director Bob O’Neill. They reinforced for all of us a deep appreciation of the
difference made by inspirational leadership. It is with sadness and respect
that the eighth edition of the Model City Charter is dedicated to the memory of
Betty Jane, who passed away on December 9, 2001.
And finally, the process greatly benefited from the
involvement of four senior advisers: Terrell Blodgett, William N. Cassella, Jr., Robert Kipp, and
Jim Svara. Terrell Blodgett is the Mike Hogg
Professor Emeritus in Urban Management at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at
the University of Texas and a former chairman of NCL, while William N. Cassella, Jr., is the former long-time executive director
of NCL, and Robert Kipp is group vice president at
Hallmark Cards and a former city manager of Kansas City, Missouri.
The expertise of these individuals and the range of
experiences and perspectives that they brought to bear on revising the model
charter make us confident that this edition of the Model City Charter not only
updates best practices to keep the document current but also orients it to the
future.
We wanted to modernize the charter and ensure its
relevance to the new millennium, and we feel that we succeeded in doing so.
NCL, as the nation's oldest political reform organization
promoting the cause of good government at the local level, will continue to
update the model charter as changing circumstances warrant. This focus on
understanding and supporting effective local government is a significant part
of NCL's overall commitment to the goal of
reinvigorating citizen democracy.
Whether through NCL's
53-year-old civic recognition program, the All-America
City award, or the work it does on civic engagement and
political reform, NCL is dedicated to the principle that all sectors of our
society, the public, private, and nonprofit, must work together to address our
common needs and build a thriving democracy. NCL recognizes that in the modern
American community, local government not only provides services to the public
but also contributes the leadership that allows new models of community
governance to flourish.
Christopher T. Gates is president
of the National Civic League, Denver, Colorado mailto:chrisg@ncl.org,
and Robert Loper is editor, National Civic Review,
National Civic League, Washington, D.C. (robert@ncldc.org).