What is Commission- Manager Form?
Montana’s Commission-Manager Government: Professional Administration for Local Efficiency
Some in Montana might view the commission‐manager form as an untried, if not radical, departure from the familiar council-mayor form. In fact, however, the commission-manager form of local government has been in continual and growing use in the United States since the turn of the century and in Montana since 1921 when Bozeman was the first city to adopt this form, apparently in an effort to strengthen its capacity to deal with its then serious financial
difficulties. Presently in the United States there are more than 3,600 commission‐manager cities. In Montana, 12 municipalities have adopted this form and typically for the same reasons Bozeman did, which was to increase the efficiency of their city government. Of the 12 commission-manager forms of municipal government now functioning in Montana, nine are embedded within voter approved, self-governing charters. The remaining three communities adopted, with minor variations, the statutory version of the commission‐manager form whose structures and powers are set forth specifically in law and described immediately below.
The Commission. The role of the city commission in the commission‐manager form of government is quite different from that of the traditional city council. Gone are the shared executive powers and day‐to-day committee involvement in the administration of city affairs. Gone too are the aldermen representing their neighborhoods, wards, and political parties. In this form of local government, the commission typically has five members elected at large from the community and without political party identification. The commission’s much simplified yet more sophisticated role is to set goals, make policy and then hire a 1. Municipal Government Defined 13 competent and compatible manager to achieve its goals and carry out commission policy. Even the role of the presiding officer of the commission carries with it no executive or administrative authority. Although the commission chairperson is often and ambiguously referred to as the “mayor,” she or he has no authority beyond that of presiding over the city commission itself and in doing so may not exercise veto power. The presiding officer of the commission is sometimes selected by the commission from among its own number; however, most manager cities in Montana now directly elect a mayor to serve as the presiding officer of the city commission. In most cases, the chair of the city commission (mayor) may be recognized as the “head of the municipality” for limited ceremonial purposes. The Executive (Manager). The distinctive characteristic of the commission‐manager form is that the executive (manager) is hired by and serves at the pleasure of the commission, rather than being elected directly by the voters. Once appointed to the position, the manager is responsible to the commission for the administration of all departments and services of the city. Unlike the shared and blurred executive powers of the mayor in the commission-executive form, described above, the typical Montana city manager has sole responsibility to
enforce the law, direct, supervise, hire and fire all employees of the city (except those who may work directly for the commission, such as clerk of the commission) and to prepare the city’s budget for commission approval. Neither the commission nor any individual commissioner may give orders to or even deal with the city employees except through the manager. As in the modern corporation, the commission serves as the “board of directors” and the city manager is the municipal government’s “CEO.” In summary, the commission‐manager form of government is characterized by relatively simple organizational structure, clearly defined responsibilities and powers of the hired professional manager and by the sharply defined policy-making role of the elected commission. A reasonable expectation of this form of government is that the full‐time professional manager, directly accountable to an elected commission, will bring a measure of competent efficiency to local governmental operations. In some communities these efficiencies may become imperative in order to cope with the difficult financial conditions and growth problems confronting Montana’s medium size and larger communities in the new century. The aggregate experience of the Montana communities, which have successfully adopted this form of government, tends to bear out this expectation although it would be incorrect to assume that the manager form will produce less expensive government.
difficulties. Presently in the United States there are more than 3,600 commission‐manager cities. In Montana, 12 municipalities have adopted this form and typically for the same reasons Bozeman did, which was to increase the efficiency of their city government. Of the 12 commission-manager forms of municipal government now functioning in Montana, nine are embedded within voter approved, self-governing charters. The remaining three communities adopted, with minor variations, the statutory version of the commission‐manager form whose structures and powers are set forth specifically in law and described immediately below.
The Commission. The role of the city commission in the commission‐manager form of government is quite different from that of the traditional city council. Gone are the shared executive powers and day‐to-day committee involvement in the administration of city affairs. Gone too are the aldermen representing their neighborhoods, wards, and political parties. In this form of local government, the commission typically has five members elected at large from the community and without political party identification. The commission’s much simplified yet more sophisticated role is to set goals, make policy and then hire a 1. Municipal Government Defined 13 competent and compatible manager to achieve its goals and carry out commission policy. Even the role of the presiding officer of the commission carries with it no executive or administrative authority. Although the commission chairperson is often and ambiguously referred to as the “mayor,” she or he has no authority beyond that of presiding over the city commission itself and in doing so may not exercise veto power. The presiding officer of the commission is sometimes selected by the commission from among its own number; however, most manager cities in Montana now directly elect a mayor to serve as the presiding officer of the city commission. In most cases, the chair of the city commission (mayor) may be recognized as the “head of the municipality” for limited ceremonial purposes. The Executive (Manager). The distinctive characteristic of the commission‐manager form is that the executive (manager) is hired by and serves at the pleasure of the commission, rather than being elected directly by the voters. Once appointed to the position, the manager is responsible to the commission for the administration of all departments and services of the city. Unlike the shared and blurred executive powers of the mayor in the commission-executive form, described above, the typical Montana city manager has sole responsibility to
enforce the law, direct, supervise, hire and fire all employees of the city (except those who may work directly for the commission, such as clerk of the commission) and to prepare the city’s budget for commission approval. Neither the commission nor any individual commissioner may give orders to or even deal with the city employees except through the manager. As in the modern corporation, the commission serves as the “board of directors” and the city manager is the municipal government’s “CEO.” In summary, the commission‐manager form of government is characterized by relatively simple organizational structure, clearly defined responsibilities and powers of the hired professional manager and by the sharply defined policy-making role of the elected commission. A reasonable expectation of this form of government is that the full‐time professional manager, directly accountable to an elected commission, will bring a measure of competent efficiency to local governmental operations. In some communities these efficiencies may become imperative in order to cope with the difficult financial conditions and growth problems confronting Montana’s medium size and larger communities in the new century. The aggregate experience of the Montana communities, which have successfully adopted this form of government, tends to bear out this expectation although it would be incorrect to assume that the manager form will produce less expensive government.