What is Commission-Presiding Officer Form?

The commission­ presiding officer form of government has been adopted only by Broadview and Virginia City and both in 1976 during the first cycle of Montana’s unique Voter Review process. This somewhat unfamiliar form of local government is included as one of the optional forms specifically permitted by Montana law although it is seldom encountered in the United States.

It is, in essence, a “parliamentary” form of government in that the elected commission or council of not less than five members selects a presiding officer from among its own members to serve as the chief‐executive for a term determined by the commission. The presiding officer, who may be called the president or mayor, also retains full voting rights as a member of the commission and is the presiding officer of the commission. Hence, this form fuses legislative responsibilities with substantial executive authority (but not veto power) in a single individual, not unlike a British or Canadian prime minister.

The commission-presiding officer form of municipal government has at least two advantages, which some critics would also recognize as potential liabilities. The most probable advantage of this form, especially in a relatively small community where the pool of willing and competent candidates to serve in municipal government is likely to be quite

1. Municipal Government Defined 11 limited, is that the chief-executive is recruited directly from those already elected to serve on the municipal council. The elected council becomes the training and selection mechanism for the chief-executive in this form of municipal government.

A critic might point out that the apparent advantage of indirect selection of the community’s chief­ executive officer by the council deprives the electorate of the opportunity to vote for a chief-executive of their choice, thereby reducing electoral accountability. A second advantage that might be advanced in support of the commission‐presiding officer form is that by enabling a majority of the commission to choose the executive, it is likely that the individual will share, in some degree, the political orientation and policy priorities of a majority of the commission.

As a result, the community might expect decisive collaborative leadership from its municipal government. On the other hand, a critic might reason that, because the chief‐executive serves at the pleasure of the commission, which could reverse its appointment at will, this form of government could be inherently unstable with unpredictable changes in executive leadership accompanied by episodes of unsettling policy reversals.