When Local Elected Officials Advocate for Professional Management

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.

By Michael R. Ford
October 7, 2024

Recently there has been an uptick in Wisconsin communities exploring, or adopting, a move to professional manager forms of government. The common denominator in these recent discussions has been strong support from elected mayors in addition to elected council members. The support of mayors is a powerful counter to the oft-stated argument that the city manager form is somehow anti-democratic. Indeed, there is a populist narrative that citizens have no ability to influence their government when the head of operations is appointed as opposed to elected.

Much of this narrative, in my opinion, is driven by a lack of understanding of how professionally managed cities operate. I experienced this personally during my terms as an elected official serving under a city manager form. When asked how I viewed my role as a council member, I very publicly stated that my job was not to manage the day-to-day operations of our local government. I was surprised, though maybe I should not have been, to get a few emails from residents demanding that I resign since I was not willing to do the job. The job, as they saw it, was to oversee day-to-day operations.

I would explain that my job was in fact legislative. To create policy, build consensus, provide direction to the city manager and to evaluate the city manager’s performance as one of seven council members. Nonetheless, the populist minded skeptic would interpret this to mean the city manager could do whatever they wanted without democratic recourse. Of course, accountability under a professional manager form is different than a strong mayor. A strong mayor can be voted out of office by the electorate. Accountability for a manager flows through the elected council. But democratic accountability still exists.   

It is likely that no amount of outreach will create full understanding of government forms, and roles within said forms, among everyday citizens. Local government is complicated, is constantly changing and people have busy lives! However, it is a major problem when engaged citizens, especially those serving in local elected office, do not fully understand the roles and responsibilities of those serving in local government. Again, I saw this in my own service where my most frustrated council colleagues were the one’s who were expecting operational authority when they ran for office, and were unsure how to influence governance through a purely legislative role. Not surprisingly, these same colleagues were the one’s most likely to disparage the city manager form of government.

Some of the problem is, in my opinion, the way newly elected officials are trained onboarded in local government. Most trainings deal with technical aspects like Robert’s Rules, walking quorums, the roles of boards and commissions, etc. What is missing is how to actually be successful in affecting change through a governance role. Policy development, city manager evaluation, coalition building, bounds on authority, small group dynamics, communication flows and de-escalation techniques are all topics that should be part of governance trainings for elected officials in a professionally managed city.

Failing to engage with the elected legislative bodies serving in city manager forms of government is a huge missed opportunity to build an army of advocates for better local government. The best ambassadors for professional management should be current and former council members who experienced success serving under the form. They are the ones who can tell the story of how democratic accountability can actually be increased when all operational authority is concentrated at a single accountability point overseen by a diverse group of elected officials.

I am not suggesting that current and former city managers are not great ambassadors for professional management. They are. But, in a time of growing populism their voice alone is insufficient. I worry about the perception that the only advocates for professional management are those with the most to gain from it, i.e., those of us who educate future managers and managers themselves. That perception feeds the false anti-democratic stereotype. Which is why, to come full circle, it is so encouraging to see more local elected officials seeing the benefits of having a full-time manager/administrator.

---

Author: Michael R. Ford is a professor of public administration at the University of Wisconsin  Oshkosh, where he teaches graduate courses in budgeting and research methods. He frequently publishes on the topics of public and nonprofit board governance, accountability and school choice. He is a former member of the Oshkosh, WI Common Council. 

(4 votes, average: 4.75 out of 5)
Loading...