The Council-Manager Form of Government

A model combining democratic leadership with professional management

The council-manager form of government is used in many cities and municipalities, combining democratic leadership with professional management. It is designed to promote efficiency and reduce political influence in administrative decisions.

Org Chart for a Typical Council-Manager Government:

Organizational Chart of a Council-Manager Government

Key Features of the Council-Manager Government:

1. City Council as the Legislative Body

  • The elected city council serves as the policymaking body.
  • Council sets the city's vision, approves the budget, and makes all major policy decisions.
  • The Mayor is often elected at-large while districts typically elect councilmembers.

2. Professional City Administrator

  • The city administrator is appointed by the council to handle daily operations.
  • City Administrator implements council policies, oversees city staff, and manages the budget.
  • The city administrator is a non-political, trained, and professional administrator who can be hired or fired by the council.

3. Mayor's Role (Varies by City)

  • In some council-manager cities, the mayor is elected and presides over meetings but has limited executive power.
  • In others, the mayor is chosen by the council from among its members and serves a ceremonial role.

4. Separation of Politics and Administration

  • The council focuses on big-picture policies.
  • The manager focuses on operations and hires department heads.
  • This structure helps avoid political interference in day-to-day management.

5. Used Mainly in Medium-to-Large Cities

  • Popular in cities with populations of 25,000+.
  • Common in states like Texas, California, Florida, and North Carolina.
  • Also used in county governments and some international cities.

Pros & Cons of the Council-Manager System:

Pros:

  • Promotes professionalism, competence, and efficiency.
  • Studies show that Council-Manager governments are more transparent, responsive, efficient, and effective.
  • Reduces political corruption by keeping administration non-partisan.
  • Encourages long-term planning rather than short-term political gains.
  • More flexible — the city administrator can be replaced if performance is poor.

Cons:

  • Less voter control over executive decisions.
  • Less visible mayor sometimes leads to lower voter turnout.
  • The mayor has less power than voters often assume.
  • The system relies heavily on the competence of the city administrator.
BACK TO PROPOSED AMENDMENTS