Hubbry Logo
City managerCity managerMain
Open search
City manager
Community hub
City manager
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
City manager
City manager
City manager
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Part of the Politics series
Common forms of local government
Executive and legislature separate
Executive and legislature fused
City commission
Direct democratic forms
icon Politics portal

A city manager is an official appointed as the administrative manager of a city in the council–manager form of city government.[1] Local officials serving in this position are referred to as the chief executive officer (CEO) or chief administrative officer (CAO) in some municipalities.[2][3]

Responsibilities

[edit]

In a technical sense, the term "city manager", in contrast to "chief administrative officer" (CAO), implies more discretion and independent authority that is set forth in a charter or some other body of codified law, as opposed to duties being assigned on a varying basis by a single superior, such as a mayor.[4]

As the top appointed official in the city, the city manager is typically responsible for most if not all of the day-to-day administrative operations of the municipality, in addition to other expectations.[5][6]

Some of the basic roles, responsibilities, and powers of a city manager include:

  • Supervision of day-to-day operations of all city departments and staff through department heads;
  • Oversight of all recruitment, dismissal, disciplining and suspensions;
  • Preparation, monitoring, and execution of the city budget, which includes submitting each year to the council a proposed budget package with options and recommendations for its consideration and possible approval;
  • Main technical advisor to the council on overall governmental operations;
  • Public relations, such as meeting with citizens, citizen groups, businesses, and other stakeholders (the presence of a mayor may alter this function somewhat);
  • Operating the city with a professional understanding of how all city functions operate together to their best effect;
  • Attends all council meetings, but does not have any voting rights[7]
  • Additional duties that may be assigned by the council[5][6]

The responsibilities may vary depending upon charter provisions and other local or state laws, rules, and regulations. In addition, many states, such as the states of New Hampshire and Missouri, have codified in law the minimum functions a local "manager" must perform.[8] The City Manager position focuses on efficiency and providing a certain level of service for the lowest possible cost.[9] The competence of a city manager can be assessed using composite indicators.[10]

Manager members of the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) are bound by a rather rigid and strongly enforced code of ethics that was originally established in 1924. Since that time the code had been up-dated/revised on seven occasions, the latest taking place in 1998. The updates have taken into account the evolving duties, responsibilities, and expectations of the profession; however the core dictate of the body of the code--"to integrity; public service; seek no favor; exemplary conduct in both personal and professional matters; respect the role and contributions of elected officials; exercise the independence to do what is right; political neutrality; serve the public equitably and governing body members equally; keep the community informed about local government matters; and support and lead our employ-ees"—have not changed since the first edition.[11]

History

[edit]
Municipal government diagram.

Most sources trace the first city manager to Staunton, Virginia[12] in 1908. Some of the other cities that were among the first to employ a manager were Sumter, South Carolina (1912) and Dayton, Ohio (1914); Dayton was featured in the national media, and became a national standard. The first "City Manager's Association" meeting of eight city managers was in December 1914.[13] The city manager, operating under the council-manager government form, was created in part to remove city government from the power of the political parties, and place management of the city into the hands of an outside expert who was usually a business manager or engineer, with the expectation that the city manager would remain neutral to city politics. By 1930, two hundred American cities used a city manager form of government.[14]

In 1913, the city of Dayton, Ohio suffered a great flood, and responded with the innovation of a paid, non-political city manager, hired by the commissioners to run the bureaucracy; civil engineers were especially preferred. Other small or middle-sized American cities, especially in the west, adopted the idea.

In Europe, smaller cities in the Netherlands were specially attracted by the plan.[15]

By 1940, there were small American cities with city managers that would grow enormously by the end of the century: Austin, Texas; Charlotte, North Carolina; Dallas, Texas; Dayton, Ohio; Rochester, New York; and San Diego, California.[16]

Profile

[edit]

In the early years of the profession, most managers came from the ranks of the engineering professions.[17] Today, the typical and preferred background and education for the beginning municipal manager is a master's degree in Public Administration (MPA), and at least several years' experience as a department head in local government, or as an assistant city manager. As of 2005, more than 60% of those in the profession had a MPA, MBA, or other related higher-level degree.[18]

The average tenure of a manager is now 7–8 years, and has risen gradually over the years. Tenures tend to be less in smaller communities and higher in larger ones, and they tend to vary as well, depending on the region of the country.[18][19]

Educational Level of Local Government Managers (MYB = Municipal Yearbook; SOP = State of the Profession survey):[7]

1935 1964 1974 1984 1995 2000 2006 2012
High school or less 42% 14% 6% 2% 4% 2% 4% 1%
Some college, no degree 21% 22% 18% 10% — 9% 11% 6%
Bachelor's degree 35% 41% 38% 30% 24% 26% 27% 23%
MPA degree — 18% — — 44% — 37% 43%
Other graduate degree 2% 5% 38% 58% 28% 63% 21% 27%
Source 1940 MYB 1965 MYB 1990 MYB 1996 MYB 2001 MYB 2006 SOP survey 2012 SOP Survey
Sample size n = 449 n = 1,582 n not reported n =2 65 n = 3,175 n = 2,752 n = 1,816

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

City manager

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A city manager is an appointed professional administrator who serves as the chief executive officer of a municipality under the council-manager form of government, tasked with implementing policies established by the elected city council while overseeing daily operations, budget preparation, personnel management, and service delivery across departments such as public works, public safety, and economic development. This structure emphasizes a separation between elected policymakers and non-partisan administration, designed to promote efficiency, expertise, and continuity in governance free from electoral politics. Originating in the early 20th-century progressive reform movement to combat municipal corruption and inefficiency, the model was first formally adopted in Sumter, South Carolina, in 1912, and has since been implemented in thousands of U.S. cities, with the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) advocating its principles of professional management. Key responsibilities include advising the council on policy, ensuring fiscal accountability, and fostering intergovernmental relations, though the system has faced critique for concentrating executive authority in an unelected official, potentially reducing direct voter influence over administrative decisions compared to mayor-council forms.

Historical Development

Origins in the Progressive Era

The council-manager form of government, featuring a professionally trained city manager appointed by an elected council to handle administrative duties, emerged during the Progressive Era (roughly 1890s–1920s) as a response to widespread municipal corruption, inefficiency, and political machine dominance in American cities. Rapid urbanization and industrialization had strained traditional mayor-council systems, where patronage, ward-based politics, and unqualified elected officials often prioritized cronyism over public service, leading to scandals like those in New York and Chicago. Progressives, drawing from business efficiency models, advocated separating policymaking from day-to-day operations to introduce expert management akin to corporate practices, thereby reducing partisan interference and enhancing accountability. Precursors to the full council-manager system included the Galveston Plan of 1901, where Texas's Galveston adopted a commission government after a devastating hurricane exposed administrative failures; this model centralized power in a small elected commission with appointed experts, influencing later reforms by emphasizing elections and professional administration over ward bosses. The idea crystallized further through advocacy by reform groups like the National Municipal League, which promoted nonpartisan, streamlined governance to combat "bossism." By 1908, , implemented an early version by hiring a under its council, though without formal charter changes, marking an experimental step toward . The first formal charter adoption occurred in , in 1912, incorporating core principles of a small elected council appointing a manager responsible for operations. This gained national prominence when —a city of about 116,000 residents—adopted the plan in 1913 following its own flood crisis, hiring engineer Henry M. Waite as its inaugural city manager in 1914; Dayton's success in rapid infrastructure improvements and cost savings demonstrated the model's viability, spurring over 500 municipalities to follow suit by 1930. The International City Managers' Association, formed in 1914, institutionalized the movement, standardizing qualifications and ethics for managers trained often in engineering or .

Expansion and Institutionalization

Following the pioneering adoption in Staunton, Virginia, in 1908 and formalization in Sumter, South Carolina, in 1912, the council-manager form expanded rapidly after Dayton, Ohio, implemented it in 1914 as the first sizable city, drawing widespread national interest. By 1918, 100 local governments had adopted the plan. The number of council-manager communities grew to 400 by 1930, reflecting broader appeal amid demands for efficient, nonpartisan administration. Post-World War II expansion accelerated, with an average of 50 annual adoptions from 1945 to 1985, culminating in 2,563 U.S. local governments operating under the form by December 1985. Peak yearly gains included 159 new adoptions in 1973 and 133 in 1976. By the early 21st century, the form had become dominant, governing over half of U.S. cities with populations exceeding 5,000—53 percent as of 2008—and serving more than 92 million residents. As of recent counts, 3,003 ICMA-recognized U.S. local governments use the council-manager structure, underscoring its enduring prevalence in medium- and large-sized municipalities. Institutionalization advanced through the City Managers' Association, founded in 1914 with 32 initial members to promote professional standards and knowledge sharing among managers. In 1924, the group adopted its first code of ethics, emphasizing apolitical administration and accountability, and renamed itself the International City Managers’ Association to reflect cross-border adoptions. Subsequent evolutions, including the 1969 shift to International City Management Association and 1991 expansion to International City/County Management Association, formalized training, credentialing, and recognition of general management practices, embedding the profession within structured norms. These efforts, sustained by ongoing ICMA initiatives in ethics, leadership development, and policy guidance, solidified the city manager's role as a career-oriented, expertise-driven position insulated from partisan politics.

Government Structure

Council-Manager System Mechanics

In the council-manager system, an elected council serves as the legislative and policymaking body, responsible for enacting ordinances, approving budgets, and setting the strategic direction for the municipality. The council appoints a professional city manager to act as the chief executive officer, who is tasked with implementing council policies without direct involvement in legislative decisions. This structure emphasizes a clear division between policy formulation by elected officials and administrative execution by appointed experts, aiming to insulate daily operations from partisan politics. The city manager oversees all administrative functions, including directing department heads, managing personnel, preparing the annual for review, and ensuring efficient service delivery. Unlike elected executives, the manager is selected based on qualifications in , often holding advanced degrees or certifications from bodies like the International City/County Management Association (ICMA), and serves at the 's discretion, removable by majority vote without cause. This fosters to the while allowing the manager to make impartial operational decisions, such as hiring, firing, and resource allocation, free from electoral pressures. Council-manager interactions occur primarily through regular meetings where the manager provides reports, policy recommendations, and budget proposals, but the council refrains from directing specific administrative actions to maintain the separation of roles. The council retains oversight by approving major contracts, land use decisions, and fiscal plans, while the manager executes these directives and advises on feasibility based on operational data. In cases of policy disputes, the council's authority prevails, as the manager's role is advisory and implementational, not vetoing or initiating legislation independently. This system's mechanics promote professional management by centralizing executive power in a non-partisan appointee, with empirical adoption in over 3,500 U.S. municipalities as of recent surveys, reflecting its prevalence in cities seeking administrative efficiency over strong executive personalities. Variations exist, such as ceremonial mayors selected from the council, but the core principle remains the council's collective policy control and the manager's operational autonomy under that framework.

Comparison to Mayor-Council Form

The council-manager system, featuring an appointed city manager as chief executive, contrasts with the mayor-council system, where an elected holds executive . In the council-manager form, the elected retains legislative and policy-making powers, while the manager implements policies and manages daily operations, including hiring and firing staff. In mayor-council governments, the legislates, but the exercises executive control, often with powers and direct appointment over department heads. Key structural differences influence dynamics:
CharacteristicCouncil-ManagerMayor-Council
Executive SelectionAppointed by Elected by voters
Executive TenureAt-will, indefiniteFixed term (typically 4 years)
Policy Role sets ; manager executes proposes and executes; legislates
Administrative ControlManager hires/fires staff professionally appoints, often politically
AccountabilityIndirect via Direct to voters
This table draws from standard municipal government analyses. Council-manager systems prioritize expertise, minimizing partisan influence in administration and fostering through merit-based hiring, as evidenced by lower levels compared to mayor-council forms where political can override competence. Empirical reviews of performance data support that council-manager governments outperform mayor-council counterparts in fiscal restraint, service delivery, and reduction; for example, a synthesis of studies affirms 10 propositions favoring council-manager , including better management and to diverse interests without special interest dominance. However, some analyses find no significant gaps, attributing variations more to size than form, with mayor-council potentially advantageous in larger municipalities requiring strong, visible during crises. Mayor-council forms provide greater democratic legitimacy for the executive, enabling direct voter oversight and unified , but risk politicized administration and higher exposure, as insulation in council-manager setups correlates with ethical improvements in multiple studies. Adoption trends show council-manager as the fastest-growing form in the U.S., reflecting preferences for apolitical amid evidence of sustained operational advantages.

Core Responsibilities

Operational and Administrative Duties

The city manager serves as the responsible for directing the day-to-day operations of municipal departments, ensuring efficient execution of services such as , police and , , , , , utilities, and . This includes supervising department heads to maintain ethical, transparent, and effective service delivery, often through systems that track outcomes in areas like road maintenance, recycling programs, and emergency response. In personnel management, the city manager appoints, supervises, disciplines, and removes administrative officers and employees, except where limited or provisions, delegating to department heads for subordinate roles. This encompasses recruiting and hiring staff across functions like public safety and to foster organizational excellence and align workforce efforts with community objectives. Administrative duties involve enforcing municipal laws, ordinances, and council policies; preparing meeting agendas and reports on operations; and keeping the council informed of administrative activities and emerging needs. The manager directs all departments subject to oversight, conducts routine correspondence, and handles fiscal year-end summaries of administrative performance to promote without encroaching on legislative policy-making.

Financial and Policy Implementation

The city manager holds primary responsibility for formulating and executing the municipal , a that begins with compiling forecasts from sources such as taxes, fees, and grants, alongside detailed expenditure projections for city operations. This budget proposal is presented to the city council for review and approval, typically annually, ensuring alignment with priorities while maintaining fiscal discipline. Once enacted, the manager directs its implementation across departments, authorizing expenditures, tracking variances through regular financial reporting, and adjusting allocations as needed to prevent deficits or overspending. Compliance with legal standards, including debt limits and auditing requirements under frameworks like the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB), falls under the manager's oversight to safeguard public funds. In policy implementation, the city manager serves as the executive arm of the , operationalizing adopted ordinances and strategic plans by assigning tasks to department heads, procuring resources, and coordinating interdepartmental efforts. For instance, if the enacts a for upgrades, the manager develops timelines, vendor contracts, and performance metrics to execute it efficiently, often drawing on expertise to refine vague directives into actionable programs. This role emphasizes apolitical administration, where the manager advises on feasibility based on data-driven assessments rather than electoral pressures, though execution remains accountable to council oversight. Empirical analyses of council-manager systems indicate enhanced fiscal outcomes, such as reduced per capita spending on administrative functions compared to mayor-council forms, attributed to practices that prioritize cost controls and optimization.

Professional Profile

Qualifications and Selection Process

City managers typically possess advanced educational credentials and substantial professional experience in public administration. A bachelor's degree in fields such as public administration, political science, or business administration serves as a foundational requirement for many positions, while a master's degree—often in public administration (MPA), public policy, or business administration—is held by approximately two-thirds of surveyed city managers. The International City/County Management Association (ICMA), the primary professional body for local government managers, recommends a master's degree with a concentration in public administration as a minimum guideline for effective performance in the role. Preferred qualifications frequently include the ICMA Credentialed Manager (ICMA-CM) designation, which requires demonstrated expertise through peer-reviewed experience and continuous professional development. Beyond formal education, city managers must exhibit extensive practical experience, usually several years in progressively responsible roles within , encompassing areas like budgeting, personnel , and . Successful candidates demonstrate skills, ethical integrity, and a commitment to enhancing community , as emphasized by ICMA standards. Variations exist by and city size; smaller municipalities may accept equivalent combinations of education and experience in lieu of advanced degrees, whereas larger cities prioritize proven track records in and intergovernmental relations. The selection process for a city manager is initiated and controlled by the elected city council, which appoints the individual by majority vote without a fixed term, allowing for removal at the council's discretion. Councils often engage executive search firms affiliated with ICMA or specialized recruiters to conduct nationwide or regional searches, defining desired qualities such as administrative expertise and strategic vision through a detailed profile. Applications undergo initial screening for alignment with these criteria, followed by structured interviews, reference checks, and sometimes assessment centers involving simulated exercises to evaluate decision-making under pressure. To attract high-caliber candidates, the process generally excludes direct public involvement, focusing instead on to mitigate political influences that could deter applicants seeking apolitical roles. Finalists negotiate contracts covering —often ranging from $150,000 to over $300,000 annually depending on size—performance incentives, and severance provisions, with council approval required for appointment. Background investigations, including financial and criminal checks, are standard to ensure suitability. This merit-based approach aligns with the council-manager system's emphasis on expertise over electoral , though council dynamics can influence outcomes if ideological alignments are prioritized over qualifications.

Challenges and Tenure Dynamics

City managers frequently encounter political conflicts with city councils, which arise from disagreements over policy implementation, administrative style, or , often serving as a primary driver of turnover. Such tensions stem from the inherent friction between the manager's nonpartisan, expertise and the elected officials' responsiveness to constituent pressures, exacerbating instability in environments with frequent council turnover or ideological divides. Additional challenges include managing crises that threaten organizational , such as public scandals or service disruptions, requiring managers to communicate effectively while preserving operational continuity. Human resource dilemmas, including unresolved employee disputes or staffing shortages, further strain decision-making, demanding impartial resolutions amid limited authority over elected bodies. Tenure dynamics reflect these pressures, with average lengths varying by municipal stability and manager competence. Empirical data indicate that city managers in the United States typically serve years per position, though medians have trended upward from approximately 3.5 years in the to around 7 years by the early in surveyed council-manager cities. For managers completing terms between 1980 and 2002, the mean tenure was 6.9 years, influenced by factors like prior experience and budgeting proficiency, which correlate with extended service. Shorter tenures often result from "push" factors, including council distrust or electoral shifts, while "pull" factors like promotional opportunities encourage voluntary departures. Longer tenures are associated with stable political environments and effective relationship-building with councils, mitigating burnout and cynicism that plague frequent movers. In contrast, high-turnover municipalities exhibit patterns of rapid succession, where incoming managers inherit unresolved conflicts, perpetuating cycles of instability; for instance, policy-style clashes account for a significant portion of forced exits over mere administrative disputes. These dynamics underscore the vulnerability of appointed roles to electoral volatility, with professional longevity hinging on navigating adaptive challenges like evolving demands without partisan entanglement.

Empirical Evidence on Performance

Efficiency and Service Delivery Outcomes

Empirical research comparing council-manager and mayor-council forms of reveals mixed evidence regarding gains, with no consistent demonstration of systematic cost advantages for council-manager systems. Studies examining fiscal performance, such as those analyzing expenditures and , often find no significant differences in cost minimization between the two structures. For instance, Deno and Mehay (1987) reported no substantial variations in , attributing outcomes more to local economic factors than governmental form. Similarly, Hayes and Chang (1990) observed comparable resource use efficiencies, suggesting that professional management alone does not yield measurable budgetary savings absent other reforms. On service delivery, findings are similarly inconclusive, though some evidence points to modestly higher operational outputs in council-manager cities for specific functions. Folz and Abdelrazek (2009) analyzed and found council-manager municipalities achieving higher collection frequencies and rates, potentially linked to centralized administrative expertise. However, broader surveys of resident perceptions, such as those by Wood and Fan (2008), indicate no uniform superiority, with service satisfaction varying by city size and demographics rather than form. A comprehensive by Carr () synthesizes these results, concluding weak support for propositions that council-manager governments deliver higher-quality services or overall effectiveness, as self-reported advantages in and reduced do not reliably translate to tangible outcomes like faster response times or lower error rates.
Key StudyFinding on Efficiency/Service DeliveryGovernment Forms Compared
Deno & Mehay (1987)No systematic efficiency differences in costs or outputsCouncil-manager vs. mayor-council
Folz & Abdelrazek (2009)Higher service levels (e.g., ) in council-managerCouncil-manager vs. mayor-council
Carr (2015) reviewMixed/weak evidence for superior service quality or fiscal Council-manager vs. mayor-council
These patterns underscore that while council-manager structures emphasize professional administration, empirical outcomes depend heavily on contextual variables like council oversight and external pressures, rather than inherent structural superiority. Recent analyses, such as those on financial (2021), suggest potential long-term benefits from apolitical in but lack causal isolation from factors.

Corruption Reduction and Ethical Advantages

The council-manager form of reduces corruption opportunities by insulating administrative decisions from electoral and patronage networks inherent in mayor-council systems, where elected executives often wield combined legislative and executive powers that facilitate favoritism. Professional city managers, appointed based on qualifications rather than popularity, prioritize merit-based hiring and contracting, diminishing incentives for arrangements. This structural separation aligns with causal mechanisms where apolitical expertise curbs discretionary abuse, as managers face oversight without personal political stakes. Empirical analysis of U.S. municipalities confirms this advantage, showing council-manager governments are 57% less likely to incur compared to mayor-council forms. The study, drawing on federal from 2006 to 2013 across over 1,400 municipalities, controlled for factors like and fiscal stress, attributing lower incidence to the embedded professionalism that fosters ethical norms over political loyalty. A subsequent examination of national from 1990 to 2020, employing to isolate government form effects, similarly found the council-manager structure lowers risk by enhancing administrative and reducing principal-agent misalignments. Ethically, city managers adhere to codified standards, such as the International City/County Management Association's (ICMA) Code of Ethics, which mandates , transparency in , and avoidance of conflicts of interest—principles reinforced through training and . This contrasts with elected mayors, who may navigate donor pressures or reelection demands, potentially compromising decisions. Managers' by the incentivizes sustained ethical conduct to preserve tenure and reputation, as evidenced by lower dismissal rates for in systems versus politicized ones. While academic sources on these dynamics exhibit occasional institutional biases toward reformist structures, the quantitative conviction metrics provide robust, verifiable support for superior ethical outcomes.

Criticisms and Controversies

Democratic Accountability Concerns

In the council-manager system, the city manager wields substantial executive authority over daily operations, budgeting, and policy implementation without being directly elected by voters, prompting concerns over reduced democratic accountability. Voters influence the system indirectly through the of city members, who appoint and can dismiss the manager, but this layered structure may dilute responsiveness to public will, as administrative decisions often evade direct electoral consequences. Critics argue this creates a "," where unelected professionals prioritize managerial expertise over immediate voter preferences, potentially leading to insulated from popular scrutiny. This indirect accountability is seen as particularly problematic in larger municipalities, where the manager's role expands to influence policy direction, blurring the intended separation of and administration. For instance, in systems with nonpartisan, council elections—common in reformed council-manager governments—voter turnout can plummet, further weakening oversight; historical data from such setups show turnouts as low as 4% in key elections, enabling . Opponents contrast this with strong-mayor systems, where an elected executive faces direct voter judgment, fostering greater alignment with constituent demands. The 2010 scandal in , underscores these vulnerabilities, as the council-manager framework facilitated unchecked corruption by city manager Robert Rizzo, who received $1.5 million in annual compensation and a $600,000 , alongside council salaries up to $100,000 for part-time roles. This "predator state" dynamic arose from civic disengagement and structural barriers to , resulting in Rizzo's 12-year prison sentence and highlighting how appointed leadership can exploit power absent robust electoral ties. While defenders maintain council oversight suffices, such cases illustrate causal risks of diffused responsibility undermining democratic control.

Conflicts with Elected Officials and Failures

Conflicts between city managers and elected officials frequently arise from disagreements over administrative autonomy, policy implementation, and the boundaries of authority in council-manager systems, where councils set broad but managers handle day-to-day operations. Elected bodies may seek direct influence on personnel or budgeting decisions, leading to accusations of or, conversely, managerial overreach in interpreting directives. Such tensions can escalate when council majorities shift after elections, exposing managers to abrupt policy reversals or personal vendettas, as the manager serves at the pleasure of the council and can be dismissed by a simple majority vote without cause in many charters. Empirical analyses of city manager turnover highlight conflict as a primary driver, with one study of 52 managers in medium-sized U.S. cities identifying council disputes over behavior, , or reform efforts as precipitating factors in 11 cases of firing, forced , or voluntary departure to avoid dismissal. For instance, three managers ousted into roles cited irreconcilable clashes with councils resistant to professional management practices, underscoring how elected officials' incentives—such as rewarding constituents or allies—can undermine the system's intended separation of and administration. High turnover rates, averaging 3-4 years per manager in some regions, impose financial costs including severance packages and recruitment expenses, often exceeding $100,000 per transition, and disrupt service continuity. Notable examples illustrate these dynamics. In , the city council dismissed City Manager Ken Domer in April 2021 by a 3-2 vote following closed-door sessions, with members citing unspecified performance issues amid broader disputes over budget priorities and staff management, though no formal reasons were publicly detailed. Similarly, in , the May 2025 council meeting devolved into public acrimony over the prior firing of the city manager and clerk, involving charges of procedural irregularities and racial tensions that highlighted fractured relations between elected officials and administrative leadership. In Van, Texas, the July 2024 dismissal of City Manager John DeSha by a 3-2 council vote—tied to disagreements over police chief appointments—prompted immediate resignations from the and a council member, exposing the fragility of stability in small municipalities. Systemic failures manifest when persistent conflicts erode and , prompting some cities to abandon the council-manager model for strong-mayor alternatives that consolidate executive power. In cities like Austin and , ongoing debates over the form's limitations— including vulnerability to politicized dismissals—have fueled proposals to revert to mayor-council structures, arguing that the professional manager's insulation from voters enables unaccountable decisions during leadership vacuums. These reversals, though rare (fewer than 5% of adoptions since the early ), often follow cycles of instability, with data showing higher abandonment rates in politically polarized environments where councils fail to maintain unified support for the manager.

References

  1. https://icma.org/what-professional-city-town-and-county-managers-do
  2. https://www.cacitymanagers.org/what-is-a-city-manager/
  3. https://icma.org/page/council-manager-form-government-resources
  4. https://icma.org/topics/form-government
  5. https://icma.org/page/icma-history
  6. https://evanstonroundtable.com/2022/07/14/city-government-101-pros-and-cons-of-council-manager-government/
  7. https://www.wausaudailyherald.com/story/opinion/2015/03/18/city-manager-idea-goes-back-progressive-era-column/24943823/
  8. https://fiveable.me/key-terms/united-states-history-since-1865/city-manager-systems
  9. https://www.calicma.org/news/the-evolving-role-of-city-managers-policy-administration-and-community-leadership
  10. https://www.burlingtonnc.gov/2400/History-of-the-CouncilManager-Form-of-Go
  11. https://oertx.highered.texas.gov/courseware/lesson/1368/student/?section=3
  12. https://www.sugarlandtx.gov/Faq.aspx?QID=188
  13. https://www.ilcma.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/form-of-government-statistics.pdf
  14. https://ballotpedia.org/Council-manager_government
  15. https://mrsc.org/explore-topics/government-organization/cities/city-forms-of-government
  16. https://icma.org/topics/council-manager-relations
  17. https://icma.org/articles/pm-magazine/authority-versus-power-local-government
  18. https://www.sog.unc.edu/resources/faqs/what-difference-between-council-manager-system-administration-and-mayor-council-system
  19. https://flintcitycharter.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Forms-of-Government-comparison-chart.pdf
  20. https://icma.org/sites/default/files/302618_Council-Manager%2520or%2520Strong%2520Mayor%2520-%2520The%2520Choice%2520is%2520Clear.pdf
  21. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280915640_What_Have_We_Learned_about_the_Performance_of_Council-Manager_Government_A_Review_and_Synthesis_of_the_Research
  22. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/puar.12415
  23. https://ideas.repec.org/p/iuk/wpaper/2007-02.html
  24. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w14857/w14857.pdf
  25. https://icma.org/page/local-government-management-career-overview
  26. https://www.nationalcivicleague.org/model-city-charter-9th-edition-article-iii-city-manager/
  27. https://sopa.tulane.edu/blog/what-does-city-manager-do-career-guide-aspiring-mpa-students
  28. https://icma.org/job-posts/146464
  29. https://www.augusta.edu/online/blog/what-does-city-manager-do
  30. https://www.excelsior.edu/article/what-does-a-city-manager-do/
  31. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1060487
  32. https://icma.org/page/eligibility-requirements-icma-voluntary-credentialing-program
  33. https://icma.org/what-it-takes-be-professional-local-government-manager
  34. https://www.myoldsmar.com/Faq.aspx?QID=73
  35. https://icma.org/sites/default/files/1967_How%2520to%2520Successfully%2520Recruit%2520a%2520City%2520Manager%2520in%2520the%252021st%2520Century.pdf
  36. https://www.wrrb.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/selecting-a-city-manager-facts-and-procedures.pdf
  37. https://www.sequimwa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/17630/CM-recruitment-process-ICMA
  38. https://icma.org/hiring-a-manager
  39. https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/R_DeHoog_City_1991.pdf
  40. https://icma.org/sites/default/files/3407_.pdf
  41. https://icma.org/sites/default/files/3000_.rtf
  42. https://icma.org/documents/maintaining-credibility-during-crisis-challenges-manager
  43. https://icma.org/articles/pm-magazine/managers-decision-guide-difficult-human-resource-issues
  44. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275441937_Tenure_of_City_Managers_Examining_the_Dual_Meanings_of_Average_Tenure
  45. https://hanfordsentinel.com/news/city-manager-tenure-whats-average/article_0f83bf57-b6b9-5fe5-8e84-af8405cc15fc.html
  46. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314436833_Determinants_of_a_City_Manager%27s_Tenure_in_Office_The_Person_Job_Municipality_and_Election_System
  47. https://icma.org/articles/pm-magazine/when-stay-and-when-go
  48. https://www.jstor.org/stable/977522
  49. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1078087419869544
  50. https://indigo.uic.edu/ndownloader/files/19261835
  51. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09540962.2021.1923168
  52. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/puar.13050
  53. https://www.salina.com/story/opinion/columns/2023/11/05/unelected-leaders-make-many-kansas-municipalities-daily-decisions/71411457007/
  54. https://patimes.org/is-the-council-manager-form-of-government-the-right-form-of-government/
  55. https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/context/localgovernmentreconsidered/article/1201/viewcontent/Tom_Hogen_Esch___Predator_State___Corruption_in_a_Concil_Manager_System___Case_of_Bell_CA.pdf
  56. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/31031985_US_Local_Government_Managers_and_the_Complexity_of_Responsibility_and_Accountability_in_Democratic_Governance
  57. https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/localgovernmentreconsidered/bellscandal/papers/6
  58. https://icma.org/sites/default/files/5549_Councilmanic.pdf
  59. https://www.sog.unc.edu/sites/default/files/reports/2017-03-30%252020160733%25208%2520Strategies_Upshaw.pdf
  60. https://www.jstor.org/stable/977109
  61. https://voiceofoc.org/2021/04/fullerton-city-council-members-sack-city-manager-ken-domer-without-saying-exactly-why/
  62. https://www.progress-index.com/story/news/2025/05/14/hopewell-council-meeting-tensions-tempers-racism-charges-mayor-called-bitch/83615405007/
  63. https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/politics/city-of-van-fires-city-manager-mayor-and-city-councilmember-quit-over-police-chief-controversy/287-65a2cdaa-76b7-4503-a7ff-31b60d0bd548
  64. https://www.nationalcivicleague.org/assault-on-city-management-undermines-local-integrity/
  65. https://icma.org/blog-posts/four-fatal-flaws-council-manager-relationship
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.