AHACHMENTA
FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
CHARTER REFORM TASK FORCE
TO THE CITY COUNCIL
June 1998
PAS0^^6 ^^^ 's
07 *•k
(D z
0GO
00}
s;
^^ ^
^ 0^ ^rm
FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
CHARTER REFORM TASK FORCE
TO THE CITf COUNCIL
June 1998
Charter Reform Task Force Members:
Ross Selvidge, Chair
Brian Williams, Vice Chair
Fred Brandt
Ken Chawkins
Michael Coppess
John Crowley
James DeBose
Peter Dreier
Vince Farhat
Porfirio Frausto
Harold James
Richard Janisch
Mark Lean
Esteban Lizardo
Ralph McKnight
Katie Nack
Thelma Reyna
Paul Sawyer
Margaret Thomas
William Thomson
6/29/98
7.C.l.
PA^y0
^^^ >>.
07 + *
<0 z
<D 0<0 0»\
^^ '0??- 0y ^TED
Agenda Report
TO: CITY COUNCIL JUNE 29,1998
FROM: CHARTER REFORM TASK FORCE
SUBJECT: FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CHARTER REFORM TASK FORCE I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TASK FORCE MISSION
The Pasadena City Charter Reform Task Force was created by the Pasadena City Council on August 18,1997. It was made up of 21 members with each Councilmember submitting three nominees who were confirmed by the full Council. The Task Force was directed to investigate three specific issues and make recommendations to the City Council, including any revisions to the City Charter that might be required to implement them. The three specific areas of inquiry were:
A. General form of City government
B. City Council compensation
C. The aspects of the Board of Education of the Pasadena Unified School District as they are defined in the Charter
INVESTIGATIONS AND DELIBERATIONS
Beginning in late September 1997, the Charter Reform Task Force held a series oftwenty- one general meetings and four public forums. At those meetings and forums, the Task Force heard a variety of presentations on municipal government and deliberated on specific issues. Deliberations concluded with a special meeting on June 15, 1998. In its deliberations, the Task Force also utilized a broad range of reference materials obtained from a variety of sources. From time to time, ad hoc work groups were formed to research specific issues. Their findings and recommendations were then U3ed as a point of departure for deliberations by the full Task Force.
MEETING OF6/29/98AGENDA ITEM NO.7.C.l.
Input from the public was received at each general meeting during a public comment period and in conjunction with the Task Force's own deliberations. The four public forums, which were widely publicized, were dedicated exclusively to receiving public input.
The recommendations of the Task Force are based on votes taken on a series of motions made during the course of the deliberations. A majority vote of those present was required to pass a motion and constitute a recommendation of the Task Force. Specific revised Charter language is not included in this Report. Members not in agreement with the majority on any issue were invited to submit minority reports along with the Task Force's recommendations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. General Form of City Government
Based on its deliberations and the votes taken, the Task Force made the following recommendations:
1. The City should continue to utilize the council/manager form of municipal government. The duties and responsibilities of the City Manager and Council as currently described in the Charter should remain the same.
2. The City Council should continue to have seven members elected by district, in addition to a citywide elected Mayor.
3. The Mayor should:
a. Be elected at-large in a citywide election,
b. Have a term of four years with the first election being held in the 2001 municipal election cycle,
c. Sit as the presiding officer of the City Council and vote as any other Councilmember, and
d. Have the additional responsibility, at the beginning of each budget cycle, to deliver a budget message to the City, Council and City Manager indicating thematic budget priorities that should be taken into consideration in the preparation of the budget for submission to the full Council.
Additional duties that are not proposed as Charter amendments, but are the Task Force's vision of the role of the citywide elected Mayor, are detailed in Section III, Citywide Elected Mayor.
B. City Council Compensation
The Task Force recommends that the provisions in the Charter should be changed to provide for the following:
1. Councilmembers elected by district should be paid a stipend of $250 per meeting, not to exceed $1,000 per month.
2. The Mayor should be paid a stipend equal to 150% of the other councilmembers.
3. By a unanimous vote with all members present and voting, the Council can change the amount of the stipend annually and, if increased, by not more than the most recent annual percent change in the CalPERS cost of living index.
4. Councilmembers will be prohibited from receiving a stipend or other compensation for any other duties or position in the City, Community Development Commission or other City-related entity. This will not prohibit Councilmembers from receiving compensation in connection with service with other public agencies.
C. Board of Education
The Task Force also recommends that the method by which the Board of Education members are elected should be changed to a system of proportional representation and that it be accomplished as follows:
1. The City Council form a new task force to study and make a recommendation on a specific method of voting under a proportional representation system for School Board elections.
2. Based upon the new task force's recommendations, Charter language would then be drafted and presented for a vote of the people on the specific method of voting under a proportional representation system, and provide for the election of all five School Board seats simultaneously. This Charter amendment proposal should go before a vote of the people no later than the year 2000 and, if approved, the new voting method would be used for the next municipal election in the year 2001.
D. Community Involvement/Neighborhood Councils
The Task Force also discussed extensively the topic of neighborhood councils. The main focus of those discussions was the expansion of the level of participation by citizens in municipal and civic affairs. It was decided that the Task Force would recommend that the
City Council should create a program to establish a Community Involvement Study Group.
The Study Group would assess current avenues of involvement within the City of Pasadena and recommend an overall Community Involvement Strategy for enhancing effective community participation. The study should include, but not be limited to, consideration of an annual Community Congress, neighborhood councils, leadership development, and youth participation in the political process.
IMPLEMENTATION
In order to implement the recommendations relating to the mayor, compensation and the manner of electing School Board members, it will be necessary to amend the City Charter.
Amending the Charter requires a majority vote in an election on a specific proposal. City governance related issues must be voted upon within the City. Any Charter amendment relating to the Board of Education must be voted upon by the entire School District. The votes can be held at regularly scheduled or special elections. It is recommended that votes on any Charter amendments be separated into the governance, compensation and School Board categories.
The next regularly scheduled elections at which votes could be held are the November 3, 1998 State General Election and the March 9, 1999 Municipal Primary Election. In order to vote on the issues in the November 1998 election, it would be necessary for the City Council to take final action on the measures in the form in which they would appear on the ballot not later than 88 days prior to the election (i.e., by the first week of August 1998).
If called upon, members of the Task Force will make themselves available to assist the City Attorney in the drafting or review any revised Charter language or the ballot measures and comment on their consistency with the intent of the recommendations.
ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
The findings and recommendations of the Task Force in each area of inquiry are presented in detail in separate sections following this summary. Each section was written by a designated Task Force member. A listing of the membership of the Task Force (Attachment A) and a copy of the minutes of each meeting (Attachment B) are included.
A Minority Report relating to proportional representation has been prepared as a separate document.
II. BASIC FORM OF CIPf GOVERNMENT
CURRENT STRUCTURE
The City Charter calls for seven City Councilmembers. They are nominated and elected by district (only). The City Council is the legislative body of city government. Council is responsible for organization and activities of City government. Councilmembers are specifically prohibited from attempting to influence or direct any subordinates of the City Manager; they are directed to deal with administrative services solely through the City Manager.
The City Charter requires Council to elect a Mayor from among the Council membership each year. The present system routinely advances a member of Council to the office of Mayor on a purely seniority basis, and for a maximum of two one-year terms of office as Mayor. The Mayor presides at Council meetings and has a vote as a member of Council.
The Mayor is "chief executive" under the general laws of the State covering such subjects as serving civil process and responding for military purposes. The Mayor is official head of the City for ceremonial purposes.
The Charter also calls for a Vice Mayor that is elected from among the Council membership. The Vice Mayor has been traditionally selected based on a seniority basis.
Council is the official appointing authority of the City Manager, City Attorney, City Prosecutor, and City Clerk.
The Charter provides for a City Manager who is designated the "chief administrative officer" and "head of the administrative branch" of city government. Powers and duties of the City Manager consist of:
Supervision, coordination, and administration of City functions.
Enforcement of all laws and ordinances of the City.
Appointment and supervision of City officers and employees (except those appointed by Council).
Attendance at Council meetings with recommendations for Council approval or adoption of matters needed or expedient.
Preparation of the annual City budget and its submission to Council. • Action to carry out policies as determined by Council. • Enforcement of contracts and franchises.
REASONS FOR CONSIDERING A CHANGE
There is a valid perception of a need for a leader-spokesman in intergovernmental relations, in contacts with community educational institutions ("town & gown"), and in forging linkages with commercial, industrial, volunteer cultural/ charitable, and religious organizations.
A change is recommended by the Task Force in the election of the Mayor in order to significantly improve leadership, communication, and accountability in relation to Council and the community as a whole. The Task Force has obsen/ed there currently is a vacuum in the domain of issues having citywide significance which could be remedied by community-wide conversation during the four-year Mayor campaigns.
Simply stated, the Mayor is responsive and accountable at present only to the voters in a single councilmanic district - not to the voters at large, Aggrevating further, the Mayor often represents a majority within the district among only approximately 18-26% of registered voters who actually vote within his or her district. The Mayor can become a needed unifying force and catalyst for the City if elected citywide.
ALTERNATE FORMS OF Ciry GOVERNMENT CONSIDERED
The Task Force reviewed possible options such as: commission form, council-manager, town meeting, strong mayor, weak mayor and other combinations. The commission form calls for each elected commissioner to be the administrative head of one or more of the City operating departments. This was rejected because of excessive dispersion of authority and failure of the scheme elsewhere.
The town meeting form was rejected because the size of Pasadena's population is too great.
The strong mayor form was considered and rejected in favor of continuing with the City Manager. The presence of experienced, professional management is preferred by the Task Force.
The so-called "weak" mayor form contemplates decentralized management with structural limitations on powers of the Mayor. Although the City of Los Angeles operates with a limited power Mayor, it is burdened by a powerful administrative commission system directing the business of most major departments, thus weakening even further the authority of the Mayor.
Some discussion was devoted to possibilities of electing one or more Council members on a citywide basis in addition to the Mayor. This notion was discarded as "too much" and "diversionary" from action on the citywide election of the Mayor.
RECOMMENDED FORM OF CITY GOVERNMENT
The Task Force urges adoption of a "Council, Mayor, Manager" form of City government, with no significant changes in election, duties or powers of the City Council and with no changes in the responsibilities or authority of the City Manager. The election and duties of the Vice Mayor would remain the same. The office of Mayor would be changed, however, as follows: The Mayor to be elected citywide, "at large" for a four-year term, resulting in a City Council of eight members including the Mayor.
There were various objections (e.g., "don't reduce representation" and "don't burden the community with an extra Council position"). The singular importance of causing the office of Mayor to be the subject of a citywide vote overwhelmed these minor differences about numbers of Councilmembers. The Task Force also resisted references to the Mayor as "full-time," not because the demands are not substantial but rather they do not fit a "full- time" pattern of 9 to 5 or 40 hours per week. Nor does the office require the Mayor to abandon other profession or employment.
The recommended form of City government, particularly including the change resulting in citywide election of Mayor, introduces significant new accountability for policies and actions of the City, including leadership on a citywide basis through the office of the Mayor, In effect, the Mayor would become the chief policy/legislative official of the City, occupying a role heretofore missing. Figuratively, the Mayor's voice would be far more clearly heard than before.
IMPLICATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION AS A CHARTER AMENDMENT
With the Mayor elected at large and continuance of seven geographic districts each represented by an elected Councilmember, the City Council will consist of eight voting members. There is nothing magic about an odd number of voting members: absence of individual Councilmembers is common and tie votes can happen with the current configuration when a member is absent.
III. CITfWIDE ELECTED MAYOR
CURRENT ARRANGEMENT
The current arrangement for the election of a Mayor for the City of Pasadena is outlined in Article IV The City Council, Section 406. It reads as follows:
At its organizational meeting on the first Monday in May, the City Council shall elect from its membership a Mayor who shall preside at its meetings. He or she shall act as chief executive of the City in performing all acts required to be performed under the general laws of the State of California. He or she shall be recognized as the official head of the City for all ceremonial purposes, by the courts for the purpose of serving civil process, and by the Governor of the State for military purposes. He or she shall have a voice and vote in all proceedings of the City Council, and shall perform such other duties as may be prescribed by this Charter or as may be imposed by the City Council consistent with his office.
As mentioned in the previous section, the Council follows a tradition of electing as Mayor the senior Councilmember who has not yet been Mayor.
REASON FOR CHANGE
As shown in the current arrangement of City Government, district representation and the mostly ceremonial/traditional election of a mayor for the city of Pasadena does not give a direct voice for residents to participate in the election of the primary representative of their city. It presents a hybrid representative that is responsible to certain district residents and must also weigh decisions that affect the city as a whole. Further, it dilutes his/her power to effectively be a proponent to outside governmental agencies (e.g., the Metropolitan Water District and the Metropolitan Transportation Agency).
District only representation also fails to provide for a mechanism that allows for a consensus making individual that is accountable to residents citywide. In the most recent deliberations on Charter reform (July of 1986, and 1987) there was citizen support for a citywide elected Mayor by way of a non-binding referendum. However, this proposal failed in a subsequent election. Its failure has been attributed by some to its being linked to an increase in Council compensation.
Due in part to this result, it is recommended that consideration for a proposition to amend the City Charter for a Mayor elected at large be a single proposition rather than one that is tied to issues voters may find conflicting or unrelated.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DELIBERATIONS
A number of alternatives were considered in deliberations by the Task Force which included:
The four basic forms of municipal government in the United States:1
1. Mayor-Council
A. Weak Mayor
B. Strong Mayor
2. Council-Manager (current form in Pasadena)
3. Commission
4. Town meeting
Of the four basic forms and associated subsets, the majority of the Task Force focused on the prospect of a combination of forms 1 and 2. This allowed for the arrangement of (1) an elected City Council by districts, (2) a Mayor elected citywide, and (3) the professional management of day-to-day operations of the city by a City Manager.
The primary characteristic of the Mayor defined in deliberations was that of a Mayor that carries much the same responsibilities of a Councilmember, but with a citywide perspective. In addition, the Mayor would provide thematic input in the budget process from its initial stages.
A majority felt that a strong Mayor in Pasadena would not be conducive to broad-based citizen participation. In addition, it was felt that a strong Mayor would introduce "professional politicians" and make the city vulnerable to outside interests and political corruption.
Additionally, hybrid forms of electing a Mayor were considered. These included but were not limited to (1) a mix of at-large Councilmembers along with district only Councilmembers being elected and the majority candidate of the at-large candidates becoming Mayor (the runner up being Vice Mayor); (2) an elected Mayor at-large in addition to at-large and district only Councilmembers; and (3) leaving the current arrangement alone. All were felt to be unworkable and difficult to solicit the citizens of Pasadena's approval with the exception of the status quo that requires no citizen approval. ' Issue Brief "Choices of the Citizenry: Forms of Municipal Government in the United States", Municipal reference Service, Washington D.C., May 1989
A series of votes by the Task Force reflect the recommendation of a citywide elected Mayor and basic duties. Those votes and the decisions made are presented in Attachment C.
Pros and cons raised for some of the arrangements of the Mayor's office are highlighted in the previous section of this report. Additional pros and cons weighed by the Task Force are in the Issue Brief found at Attachment D.
The most compelling reasons for recommending a citywide elected Mayor are as follows:
1. The campaign for Mayor will serve to focus debate on citywide issues in a way not now possible with only district-elected Councilmembers.
2. The Mayor will serve as an elected official answerable to a citywide constituency.
3. The manner of electing the Mayor in conjunction with a four-year term will significantly enhance the stature of the Mayor in dealings outside the City government.
RECOMMENDATION
The recommendation of the Task Force is as follows: in order to allow for greater citywide representation, consensus building, and a more focused proponent to outside city interests, the Task Force makes the following recommendation:
1. Maintain the current arrangement of a City Council elected by districts in conjunction with a Mayor elected citywide. The City Manager would be maintained with the same responsibilities for the professional management of day-to-day operations of the City.
2. The Mayor will have many of the same responsibilities as a Councilmember but answerable to a citywide constituency. The Mayor will be required to present a message to the City, Council and City Manager containing thematic budget priorities at the beginning of the annual budget process.
The duties and responsibilities of the Mayor were weighed in the context of a Mayor that would be elected by a citywide vote of the people, as opposed to a Mayor elected by the City Council.
At the Task Force's final meeting, it was envisioned that the citywide elected Mayor's position will become and grow into the following duties:
Recommend programs for the physical, economic, social and cultural development of the City;
Represent the City in intergovernmental relations, and relations with educational and community institutions, personally or by delegated representative, at the direction of the Council;
Provide leadership and marshal citizen participation in City activities; and In keeping with the proposed Charter change to have the Mayor deliver a budget message to the City, Council, and City Manager indicating thematic budget priorities, it is the vision of the Task Force that the Mayor will meet in each Councilmember's district for a meeting called by the Councilmember to solicit budget input from each of the seven districts.
The Mayor's duties and responsibilities would otherwise remain the same as now described in the Charter. While the Task Force does not recommend that the four duties and responsibilities listed above be placed in the Charter, they constitute the Task Force's vision of the roll the citywide elected Mayor will come to play given the enhanced stature and prestige of the office. This will be particularly pertinent in dealings with other governmental agencies and private organizations. Additional duties contemplated by the Task Force are detailed in Attachment E, Memorandum from Member John Crowley.
IMPACT AS A CHARTER AMENDMENT
To ensure that voters are allowed to address this single issue and not be encumbered by competing or conflicting issues, it is recommended that any proposition to amend the City Charter to elect the Mayor citywide be a single proposition. Final language outlining the election procedure, powers and duties of the Mayor in a proposition may need to take into consideration several sections of the Charter.
IV. NUMBER OF DISTRICT-ELECTED COUNCILMEMBERS
CURRENT ARRANGEMENT
The City Charter of Pasadena currently calls for seven Council districts. The Mayor and Vice Mayor are elected from within the membership of the City Council. Normally, the Mayor and Vice Mayor positions are rotated amongst the Council based on seniority.
REASONS FOR CONSIDERING A CHANGE
If the recommendation to add an elected Mayor to the Council is approved with no other changes to the Council, there would be eight voting members of the City Council. With this increase in the size of the City Council to eight, several concerns were raised concerning the possibility of tie votes, increased administrative costs, and an overall increase in the size of government. Accordingly, the Task Force began to consider alternatives to the eight member Council. To address these issues, the Task Force formed an ad hoc subcommittee to explore the ramifications of an eighth voting member and report back to the whole Task Force. After extensive debate and reviewing several options which are discussed below, the Task Force recommends that the number of Council districts remain at seven, with the addition of an at-large Mayor.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
After meeting and giving serious consideration to the issue, the ad hoc subcommittee recommended to the Task Force that the City Council be comprised of seven members, six elected by district and a Mayor elected at-large. Those in favor of this position argued that an increase in the size of the Council to eight or more would be expensive because of the associated administrative costs. These administrative costs may include additional staff salaries, office space and benefits. Likewise, there was a concern that the City Council meetings would become longer and possibly more caustic due to the increase in the number of voting members. The arguments in favor of the ad hoc subcommittee's recommendations were ultimately rejected.
Those in opposition to the ad hoc subcommittee's recommendation were concerned that any reduction in the number of Council districts would concomitantty reduce the level of interaction and representation for significant numbers of citizens. Indeed, one former Mayor, who is a member of the Task Force, mentioned the difficulty in keeping in contact with and responding to constituent demands. Presumably, an increase in the size of the councilmanic district due to the decrease in the size of the Council, would exacerbate this problem.
A second alternative considered by the Task Force was to have the Council comprised of nine members, eight elected by district and a Mayor elected at large. Under this scenario, the number of Council districts would be increased by one. The main argument in support of this position was to ensure that there would not be a four-four tie on any of the votes taken by the Council. Likewise, it would decrease the size of each councilmanic district and thereby presumably increase the level of interaction between the Council person and his or her constituents.
In opposition to this proposal, several members of the Task Force, as well as members of the public, suggested that an increase of two voting members to the Council would be too expensive. Several members of the public also voiced their concerns with increasing the size of the Council, stating that they did not want an increase in the size or expense of government. This proposal was also rejected by the Task Force.
There were some proposals concerning the powers to be given the Mayor in the event of tie votes. One such proposal suggested that the Mayor be given two votes in the event of a deadlocked vote. After brief discussion, these and other similar ideas were rejected.
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
After extensive debate and consideration, the Task Force voted to recommend that the Council consist of seven district representatives and a Mayor elected at large. The key rationale for this decision was to ensure that there was no reduction in the number of councilmanic districts and the concomitant reduction in the level of representation. Also, this alternative is not unduly expensive and is not likely to substantially increase the overall Council budget. As to the issue of tie votes, it should be noted that with a Council of eight members, any deadlocked item before the Council would fail as a five vote majority would be required to pass the item. If it is a crucial issue, then the item may be brought again at a subsequent meeting.
IMPLICATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
The recommendation of the Task Force to maintain seven districts does not in and of itself require a Charter amendment. The Charter currently calls for seven Council districts.
The addition of a Mayor elected at-large could be handled by a separate amendment.
V. COUNCIL AND MAYOR COMPENSATION
CURRENT ARRANGEMENT
Councilmembers currently receive approximately $14,640 annually in compensation and benefits while in office. Under Section 405 of Article IV of the City Charter, Council members receive $50 per Council meeting. By ordinance, Councilmembers also receive an additional $50 when the Community Development Commission is in session.
There is also an expense account of approximately $220 per month, and health plan benefits totaling approximately $6,000 annually. (See Attachment F, Memorandum from Director of Finance re City Council Compensation and Benefits)
REASONS FOR CONSIDERING A CHANGE
The Task Force considered a number of competing factors when studying whether to change the current compensation structure for members of the Council.
Maintain a "Citizen Council"
Pasadena has a long tradition of volunteer participation in city government, For example, our Council-Manager form of government delegates day-to-day management responsibilities to a professional City Manager while vesting legislative authority in a part- time Council. Pasadena city government also features more than 25 volunteer commissions that advise the Council on a variety of matters, including the Planning Commission, the Human Relations Commission, and various ad hoc commissions such as the Charter Reform Task Force. In many respects, Pasadena is a city of volunteers.
Thus, a key factor in considering whether to change the current compensation structure for Councilmembers was the desire to maintain the tradition of a "citizen council." The Task Force did not want to increase the Council's compensation package to the extent of encouraging the "professionalization" of Pasadena elected officials.
Recognition of Public Service and Financial Hardship
Despite the fact that service on the Council is considered a "part-time" job, members nonetheless spend a considerable amount of time attending to city business. For example, assuming that the average Councilmember spends at least 240 hours per year on city business (30 days) and applying the current monthly stipend of $250, members receive on average $12.50 per hour. This number is probably low since Councilmembers also hold district meetings, serve on Council committees, and participate in other governmental commissions. Because public participation in city government is essential, the compensation package should partially supplement the lost wages experienced by those
who serve on the Council and should create an incentive for working individuals with families to take time away from their jobs and be reasonably compensated for their service.
External Economic Factors
The Task Force also considered two external economic factors when studying whether to change the current compensation structure for members of the Council. First, the Task Force compared the annual compensation packages of other representative cities in the County of Los Angeles. For purposes of this Report, a representative city is one with a Council/Manager form of government and less than 200,000 residents. Other compensation packages for city council members ranged from a low of $600 per year (City of Santa Monica) to a high of $66,740 per year (City of Inglewood). Excluding these two extremes, the average annual compensation package is approximately $17,700. Those annual compensation packages are presented in Attachment G.
The Task Force also considered the rate of inflation since 1968, the year Pasadena voters approved the current stipend of $50 per Council meeting. There has been a 350% increase in the Consumer Price Index ("CPI") from 1968 to 1998. Adjusting for inflation, the $50 per meeting stipend is equal to $226 today.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The Task Force considered three principal alternatives when studying how to change the current compensation structure for members of the Council.
Compensation Set By Ordinance
The majority of cities in the County of Los Angeles set Council compensation by ordinance.
This permits greater flexibility in adjusting for inflation and/or changes in the scope of council responsibilities. Some legislative bodies also provide that no increase in compensation may take effect until after the next regularly scheduled election, so as to give voters the opportunity to hold legislators accountable for the pay increase. However, the Task Force rejected this alternative on the basis that the people of Pasadena should retain more direct control over the compensation of members of their Council.
Compensation Set By Commission
Some legislative bodies such as the California Legislature have delegated their power to set compensation to appointed commissions, In theory, this approach depoliticize the issue of compensation and subjects it to a more objective methodology. However, the Task Force rejected this alternative on the basis that it would insulate members of the Council from legitimate political pressure from the people of Pasadena.
Stipend Set By Charter, Benefits Set By Ordinance
Councilmembers currently receive $50 per Council meeting. This stipend is established in the Charter. (See Charter, Art. IV, § 405). Members also receive an additional $50 when the Community Development Commission is in session, an expense account, and health and life insurance benefits. These benefits are set by ordinance.
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing factors and alternatives, as well as public comment received at meetings of the Task Force, the Task Force recommends that the Councilmembers' stipend continue to be set by Charter and that benefits continue to be set by ordinance.
Compensation Proposal
The Task Force further recommends that the Charter be changed to provide for the following:
1. Councilmembers should be paid a stipend of $250 per meeting, not to exceed $1,000 per month.
2. The Mayor should be paid a stipend equal to 150% of the other Councilmembers.
3. By a unanimous vote with all Councilmembers present and voting, the Council can change the amount of the stipend annually, and, if increased, by not more than the most recent annual percent change in the CalPERS cost of living index.
4. Councilmembers will be prohibited from receiving a stipend or other compensation for any other duties or positions in the City of Pasadena, Community Development Commission or other City-related entity.
RATIONALES FOR COMPENSATION PROPOSAL
The Task Force concluded that the people of Pasadena should retain direct control over the salaries of Councilmembers and the Mayor. However, the Task Force also concluded that benefits such as a health plan costs are likely to fluctuate based on market conditions, and, as such, are more appropriately set by ordinance. Accordingly, the Task Force recommends that the Councilmembers' stipend continue to be set by Charter, but that benefits continue to be set by ordinance.
As previously stated, the Task Force did not want to increase the Council's compensation package in such a way as to encourage the "professionalization" of city elected officials.
However, the Task Force balanced this concern against the goal that the compensation package should partially supplement Councilmembers' lost wages and create an incentive for working people with families to take time away from their jobs and be reasonably compensated for their service. Given the rate of inflation since 1968 and other cities' compensation packages, the Task Force considers $250 per meeting, not to exceed $1,000 per month, to be a reasonable part-time salary for service on the Pasadena City Council. Moreover, because the Mayor has citywide ceremonial responsibilities in addition to his or her duties as a Councilmember, the Task Force believes that the Mayor should receive a higher stipend than other Councilmembers.
One of the problems with setting compensation in the Charter itself is providing for consideration for the effects of inflation. However, the Task Force specifically rejected the idea of giving Councilmembers unlimited discretion to set their own salaries by ordinance.
To balance these concerns, the Task Force recommends that Councilmembers be permitted to increase the stipend by not more than the rate of inflation as measured by the CalPERS cost of living index, and only by a unanimous vote.
Finally, the Task Force saw no justification for Councilmembers to compensate themselves for service on the Community Development Commission or other City activity. These duties are essentially indistinguishable from their duties as Councilmembers. However, Council members should not be prohibited from receiving compensation in connection with service on other, non-Pasadena public agencies, including the Burbank-Glendale- Pasadena Airport Authority and the Sanitation District Board. Thus, the Task Force recommends that Councilmembers be prohibited from receiving a stipend or other compensation for any other duties or positions in the City of Pasadena or other City- related entity.
VI. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT STRATEGY
During the course of the Task Force meetings, many Task Force members stressed the importance of enhancing meaningful community participation in shaping city policies.
Some members underscored the importance of increasing community participation within under-represented segments of the city. Others expressed a desire to make city government more accessible and meaningful to youth. Still others expressed concern over low voter turnout in municipal elections. Cynthia Abbott, coordinator of the city's Neighborhood Connections Office, spoke to the Task Force concerning ongoing attempts to organize neighborhood groups within the city and the need for leadership training as a means to empower groups within the city.
A subcommittee of Task Force members was formed to evaluate and recommend to the Task Force how these concerns may be addressed through the formation of neighborhood councils. The subcommittee recommended and the Task Force discussed a proposal to establish neighborhood councils of 15 to 25 elected members within each of the 7 districts within the City of Pasadena. The subcommittee saw neighborhood councils as a way to bring the political process closer to neighborhoods and youth, as a way to provide new opportunities for involvement, and as a means to increase direct democracy.
The Task Force declined to adopt the subcommittee's recommendation. Some Task Force members were concerned that neighborhood councils would impose a barrier between Councilmembers and their constituents. Other members stated that neighborhood councils were not needed in a city the size of Pasadena and wanted input from neighborhood associations, city commissioners, and others before recommending that neighborhood councils be adopted for the city. It was also recognized that there may be other means of achieving the subcommittee's community participation goals, such as expanding the City's Neighborhood Connections program.
As an alternative to the subcommittee's proposal, the Task Force voted to recommend that the City Council establish a Community Involvement Study Group. The Study Group would assess current avenues of involvement within the City of Pasadena and recommend an overall Community Involvement Strategy for enhancing effective community participation.
The study should include, but not be limited to, consideration of an annual Community Congress, neighborhood councils, leadership development, and youth participation in the political process.
The City Council currently has the power to create by ordinance any new bodies it may see fit in the furtherance of this strategy (e.g., neighborhood councils) provided they are only advisory in nature. It would be necessary to amend the Charter with at least permissive language if the Council desired to invest any such bodies with more than advisory power.
VII. SCHOOL BOARD STRUCTURE AND GOVERNANCE
CURRENT STRUCTURE
The Charter of the City of Pasadena, Article VII, Section 701, et seq. currently provides for a Board of Education consisting of five members holding offices numbered one through five. School Board members are elected in staggered terms with odd-numbered seats elected in one election cycle and even-numbered seats elected in the next election cycle.
Under Section 703, School Board members are elected from the School District at-large in primary nominating and general elections, unless elected by a majority of votes in the primary nominating election.
REASONS FOR CONSIDERING A CHANGE
The Task Force received comments during its public forums and regular meetings expressing the following opinions and concerns about the School Board, its structure and governance: 1) Some members of the Board are unresponsive to residents of the District, 2) The current at-large system of electing School Board members is not fair to voters or candidates, 3) Typically, at-large elections involve a greater cost to candidates due to the large number of votes needed to be elected, 4) School Board members must run for specified seats exacerbates what some consider to be a lack of fairness inherent in at- large elections, and 5) There is a need for more accountability for School Board members.
Students do not reside evenly throughout the geographic areas of the District. The majority of School District students reside in Northwest Pasadena and Altadena, while only two School Board members live in those areas. Many parents do not know whom to call for assistance on school matters. A number of community members expressed the concern that there is a distance between the School Board and parents, students and other residents of the district. Some also perceived a lack of interest in School Board elections. Changing the manner of electing School Board members may help change this community perception.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Single-member Districts
The Task Force considered single-member districts as an alternative to the current at- large system. Under this system, School Board members would be elected in the same manner as the City Council, that is, by individual Board districts within the overall Unified School District. Some community members suggested that single-member districts would provide more accountability and less distance between School Board members and parents, students and constituents. Districts also allow for election of candidates with fewer votes than in at-large elections, thereby possibly increasing interest in School Board elections.
Others pointed out that because students do not reside evenly throughout geographic areas of the School District, district representation might not sen/e the best interests of students and their parents. Because of the population density of Northwest Pasadena and Altadena, it may be difficult to draw district boundaries considered fair by all. Some community members were concerned that minority voters may have less voting strength in district elections than under the current at-large system.
It was also pointed out that School Boards members, unlike City Councilmembers, do not have natural geographic constituents. Rather, many community members believe that School Board members should have a district-wide focus. There also was concern that district elections may lead to unhealthy factionalism and rivalries between areas of the School District. Finally, the Assistant City Attorney assigned to assist the Task Force is of the opinion that the State Education Code prohibits a school district such as the Pasadena Unified School District from electing Board members from individual districts.
Proportional Representation
A variety of "proportional representation" voting systems were considered, such as the single transferable vote and cumulative voting. Proportional representation systems of voting are designed to produce a legislative body that reflects the political spectrum of the voters in proportion to the number of supporters. For example, if members of a particular constituency (political, class, racial, ethnic, etc.) make up 40% of the votes in a ten- member board election, it would get four seats. If another constituency makes up 10% of the votes, it would get one seat. This means that various majority and minority constituencies win representation while still maintaining majority rule.
It was suggested that proportional voting systems have the benefit of "self-districting" because they allow a candidate to be elected by a smaller number of votes than at-large elections. The smaller number of votes need not come from a geographically defined area, as in district elections. Rather, the boundaries are self-imposed by voters' political, ideological, or philosophical beliefs.
Others expressed concern that this type of voting system was too difficult for voters to understand and use. Task Force members understand that proportional representation systems work best in multi-candidate, nonpartisan elections, and provide no real benefit in elections with less than three candidates. The Task Force thus considered the alternatives of amending the Charter to allow the current five-member School Board to be elected simultaneously, or to increase the membership by at least one to realize the full benefit of proportional elections. Case law also indicates that some proportional voting systems are of questionable legality in California.
A comparison of various muncipal election voting methods by the League of women Voters of Seattle, including proportional representation systems, is included as Attachment H.
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
Description
Based upon the public comments and study of the alternatives, the Task Force recommends to the City Council that it form a new task force to study and make a recommendation on the specific method of voting under a proportional representation system for School Board elections. Based upon this new task force's recommendations, Charter language would then be drafted and presented for a vote of the people on the specific method of voting under a proportional representation system, and provide for the election of all five School Board seats simultaneously. The specific method of voting under a proportional representation system should be determined and go before a vote of the people not later than the year 2000. If approved by the voters, the new method of voting for School Board elections would be used for the next municipal election in the year 2001.
Key Rationales for Adopting the Proposed Change
There is considerable community interest in changing the current manner of electing School Board members to a system that will encourage more interest and participation in elections, as well as increase the School Board's accountability to parents and students.
Proportional voting systems have a reputation for increasing voter interest and turn-out.
Proportional voting systems currently are utilized in various elections across the United States, some by voluntary adoption and others as a manner of resolving challenges to current elections systems.
How the Proposed Change will Address the Reasons for Considering a Change Proportional voting permits election of candidates with fewer votes than at-large elections, which may encourage more candidates to run for School Board seats and increase voter interest in elections. Because fewer votes are required to elect candidates, proportional voting includes the benefit of district elections while overcoming the problems identified with district elections, e.g., drawing fair districts and factionalism. Because voters express their preference for more than one candidate, proportional voting may discourage candidate animosity while encouraging candidates to run in tandem or groups. The single transferable vote system of proportional representation decreases the costs of elections for political entities as well as candidates since it eliminates the need for a primary or run- off elections.
Electing five members in a single election provides for the most effective proportional voting system as a greater number of open seats results in a greater opportunity for "less- than-majority" voices to be counted.
A ATTACHMENT D
Issue Brief
A
Choices of the Citizenry:
Forms of Municipal Government
in the United States
N..^,:;':-'. •::^:;h :F {;;T:s3
•^:^.:'^ ;?L::L.^r;CE 3£RV:C£
;^i ;':;::•;,•;L';A:^i AVE.. N.W.
,V-''-ii;.ii-Tt-^, ;J.C, :0004
NOV^I ijy2.
Municipal Reference Service
Office of Membership Services
National League of Cities
1301 Pennsylania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
(202)626-3130
May, 1989
i»j^.»^<c
./^,^-T'M.iT^
^.rfr
)C,,
7<
B730
NLC2
1989
c.2
INTRODUCTION
The structure of municipal government—how it is organized— refers to the way in which the powers and responsibilities of the government are divided among the elected and the appointed city officials. The manner in which a local government is structured is important, as the operation of local government is directly affected by its organizational structure.
There are currently four basic foinns of municipal government in the United States: Mayor-Council, Council-Manager, Commission, and Town Meeting. This Issue Brief will describe each of the four forms of government, trace the history of each, present the perceived advantages and disadvantages of each form, and illustrate the division of responsibilities characteristic to each form. This paper then discusses usage trends and illustrates the proportions of American cities operating under each form in selected years from 1950 to present.
Appendix I presents a thuiabnail guide to the pros and cons of each form. Appendix II offers brief case studies of some major cities that have, in recent years, changed their form of government; these case studies look at the reasons behind the decision to adopt a different form. Finally, a bibliography of sources for further reading is provided.
FORMS OF LOCAL GOVERNANCE
MAYOR-COUNCIL^FORM OF GOVERNMENT
The use of the mayor-council form of government was imported from England during the colonial period. At that time, the colonial council was all powerful and the mayor was appointed by the colonial governor. The functions of city government were few and the citizens of the newly-formed states, having overthrown the British king, were afraid to give powers to a single executive.
The popular feeling prevailed that an official with few powers could do relatively little damage.
Under this "weak mayor" form, the mayor's administrative powers were very limited in proportion to the powers of the council, especially in the areas of budget-making and the appointment and removal of subordinate officers and employees; the mayor was chief executive in name only.
As time passed, American city government underwent many changes: general control over cities became the responsibility ofstate legislatures; popular election of city councils was established, though with a restricted electorate; and bicameral councils became a common characteristic of city government that continued into the 20th century. During this time, the mayor wasnot an independent official elected by the people, but rather hewas selected by the council for a one-year term of largely ceremonial duties.
In 1797, Baltimore, Maryland, became the first major city to give its mayor the power to veto council ordinances. In 1822, Boston, Massachusetts, adopted direct election of the mayor by the people. In 1830, New York/s mayor received an absolute veto power.
By 1850, the mayor had become the chief administrative officer in many American municipalities. Despite these tendencies to strengthen the mayor, 19th century local government was dominated by the council and the weak mayor form of government was the almost universal system of local government in the United States.
Wea* Mayor Fora of Governnent
Characteristics
The weak mayor form of government is characterized by a powerful, relatively large council which carries out administrative functions such as budget preparation, makes all major appointments, and approves the hiring and dismissal of lower level employees.
Under this form, there are many council committees, administrative boards, and commissions which exist and operate with considerable independence of the regular city government. These boards are generally created either to remove a particular municipal functionfrom the political setting or because there is little confidencethat city government can administer the service in a business-like way.
In addition to the position of mayor, there are many elective offices, including some department heads. The mayor has very restricted powers: limited or no veto power, limited or noappointment and removal power, and no important administrative functions.
Advantages and Disadvantages
Those favoring the weak mayor form argue that this is the original approach to municipal government and that there is a longhistorical tradition and much experience upon which to build. It has worked well in many small communities, particularly in rural areas. Proponents conclude that this fona/s representative council, with maximum authority, has a real potential to meet the needs of its constituents. The City of Minneapolis is an example of the weak mayor form of municipal government.
Opponents of the weak mayor form argue that under this plan responsibility, as well as power, are diffused. There is a lack of strong leadership, and the form makes no provision for professional administration. Particularly in larger cities, the political vaccuum caused by adherence to this form invites "machine" politics, and various types of political manipulation. Cooperative working agreements are of great importance in the weak mayor form of government; if these informal agreements break down, the local government is unable to accomplish its tasks.
Strong Mayor Form of Government
In the latter part of the 19th century, larger American cities sought to simplify their organizational structure, to strengthen the office of the mayor, and to eliminate some or all of the separately elected municipal officials. Thus, the "strong mayor" form of municipal government emerged.
In 1880, the city of Brooklyn, New York, adopted the strong mayor form, and in 1898, New York City followed. The citizens of large cities looked to embrace a strong and honest administration.
The strong mayor, a responsible leader politically accountable to all the people, could act in many cases as a foil to the "machine." Characteristics
The strong mayor plan takes the executive power away from the council and vests it in the mayor. It rejects the widespread scattering of administrative responsibilities, provides for an executive budget, and enables the mayor to assume direction of an integrated and administrative structure. The strong mayor does not hold meinbership in the council but does exercise veto power over council actions. As chief executive of the city, the strong mayor is granted authority to appoint and to remove department heads and other officials. The city council is charged with legislative functions and the plethora of boards and commissions found under the weak mayor form is often absent in the strong mayor structure.
Advantages and Disadvantages
Proponents of the strong mayor form contend that it provides strong political and administrative leadership for the city. It does away with the broad division of responsibilities which is one perceived defect of the weak mayor system. The strong mayor has both the responsibility for mnning the city and the authority necessary to carry out this task. Policy formulation and implementation are often facilitated by this form. The council, relieved of day-to-day administrative tasks, can focus on the major public needs of the city.
Opponents of the strong mayor plan contend that one person is handling both political and administrative functions and that there is no assurance that the mayor will have professional
administrative capabilities. Many cities, particularly larger ones, have overcome this argument by permitting the mayor to appoint a professional administrator. The mayor remains the center of government leadership and public responsibility.
COUNCIL-MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT
The council-aanager plan traces its roots to Staunton,
Virginia where, in 1908, the bicameral city council enacted an ordinance creating the office of "general manager." Dayton, Ohio was the first relatively large city to put the manager form into operation; In 1914, a commission-manager form was installed to help the city cope with damages caused by a major flood. In the 20th century, the council-manager form of municipal government has been the fastest growing form.
Characteristics
The council-manager form is similar in structure to a private corporation, with the voters, council, and manager being organizationally similar to the stockholders, board of directors, and corporate general manager. There are few elective
officers—usually only the council—with the mayor generally selected by and from the council to serve as a titular and ceremonial leader and to preside at council meetings. The policy-making legislative body is the council. The manager is a full-time professional executive charged with the administration of municipal affairs, appointed by, responsible to, and subject to dismissal by the council. The manager's tenure is based solely on performance.
Advantages and Disadvantages
Proponents of the council-manager plan point out that the presence of a professional manager in charge of the city allows the city to be run in a businesslike way. As the peopled
representatives, the council retains control of policy.
Opponents of the plan cite the lack of strong, effective political leadership, that the manager is not directly accountable to the electorate, who have only indirect control over their council-appointed administrator. They argue that the manager may be only a transitory stranger in charge of municipal affairs, using the city only as a rung on his career ladder.
COMMISSION FORM OF GOVERNMENT
Between 1870 and 1891, several southern cities, such as New Orleans, Louisiana, and Mobile, Alabama, had a commission form of government, but subsequently abandoned it. In 1901, Galveston, Texas adopted the cominission form with three commissioners to be appointed by the governor and two to be elected by the voters.
Within three years, all five commissioners/ positions were made elective by judicial decision. Galveston's successful rebuilding of its hurricane-devastated city under this new form led to its adoption in Des Moines, Iowa in 1907. Innovations were added, resulting in what became known as the Des Moines Plan, a commission form of government plus the initiative, referendum, recall petitions, non-partisan election, and civil service merit system.
Characteristics
Cocaaission government provides for the election of a small number of commissioners (typically 3, 5 or 7) who hold all legislative and executive powers of city government. Collectively, sitting as a single body, the conunissioners perform the duties of the city council—pass resolutions, enact ordinances, levy taxes, and appropriate funds. Individually, each commissioner is the administrative head of a major city department, such as public works, police, fire, health, or finance. Each city activity is thus under the authority of only one commissioner.
-.-
In its role as city council, the commission is presided over by one of its members who is usually titled as mayor. The mayor may be elected directly by the people or selected by the conunission. The mayor has no power of veto and no administrative powers beyond the city department which he oversees.
This form of municipal government is currently in decline. A number of cities, including Birmingham, Alabama, Topeka, Kansas and Tulsa, Oklahoma, have all recently changed their city charters to adopt the Mayor-Council form of government.
Advantages and Disadvantages
Proponents of the commission form of municipal government point out that historically this plan has worked extremely well in emergency situations and that city government is simplified by the centralization of power and authority. Commission government gives to a few people the power and authority to run city government, avoiding possible abuses inherent in giving all powers to one person. The Commission plan usually includes methods for direct public intervention in government—initiative, referendum, and recall.
Opponents of the plan point out that there is both too much and too little centralization: too much in placing both the legislative and administrative powers in the same hands, and too little because the whole city administration is neatly divided into a part for each commissioner. Opponents also cite a lack of effective leadership, with no one having overall administrative responsibility and the difficulty of selecting a person who is qualified to both represent the voter's interests on the city council and be a competent professional administrator to head up a city government department.
TOWN MEETING
The town meeting form of government, almost exclusively found in the New England states, is a form of local government that also has its roots in colonial America. It is the pure form of direct democracy, as every voter in the community has the opportunity to participate in the law-making process by expressing his or her own views, trying to convince other citizens, and voting on public matters.
In New England, the town is the principal kind of rural or noncity government. The town is an area of government that includes whatever villages there may be, plus the open country.
Except where a municipality has been incorporated, the town performs most of the functions a county does elsewhere.
As the population of a community increases, a modification of this form may be instituted. Known as the Representative Town Meeting, this newer plan features town voters choosing a number of citizens (usually one hundred or more) to represent them at meetings. Any voter may still attend and participate in the discussions, but only the representatives may vote. In localities operating under the Representative Town Meeting, selectmen and other officers also are elected to supervise the administration of the local laws.
Characteristics
Town meeting assemblies usually choose a board of selectmen, generally consisting of three to five members, who carry on the business of the town between meetings, have charge of town property, grant licenses, supervise other town officials, and call special town meetings. A town clerk, treasurer, assessor, constable, school board, and other officers are elected by the voters or appointed by the selectmen. The town meeting
participants often elect a finance committee to prepare the town budget.
Town meetings, both regular and special, must be preceded by a warrant, an official document that gives notice of the date, time, and location of the meeting, specifies the items to be discussed at the meeting, and authorizes the meeting. The preparation and issue of the warrant is primarily a duty of the selectmen.
Advantaqes and Disadvantages
Proponents of the town meeting form of government point out that this structure represents a pure form of democracy, in that all registered voters may participate fully in any meeting.
Outside of the structure for annual meetings, the town meeting form of organization reseinbles the Weak Mayor-Council form, except there is no mayor, only a president of the council, and no one has veto power. More and more coromonly, the selectmen choose a manager and assign routine administrative tasks to him/her.
There are also some difficulties with this form of government.
It is difficult for the town government to do much long-range planning, meeting attendance is often very low because citizens cannot or will not spend the time (often more than a day) that the meeting occupies. It is also difficult to ensure that citizens understand the complex issues and have sufficient background to vote responsibly on issues placed before them. Preparation of the warrant announcing the meeting can become a laborious task, especially regarding the budget: each line item of the budget becomes a separate article of business on the agenda.
Despite these difficulties, town meeting is still a viable form of local government in many municipalities. Some have overcome the challenges of this form by appointing a town manager or an administrative assistant to handle day-to-day operations of their communities.
TRENDS IN FORM USAGE
The form of municipal government utilized by a locality is a tool; it makes a difference as to how a community is governed and as to which groups and interests in the municipality are most influential. Local cultural circumstances help determine the type of structure that is utilized and how the form is modified to fit the local situation. For these reasons, there is no one form of government that is appropriate to all municipalities.
In the 23 very-large cities with populations of 500,000 or more (based on 1986 Bureau of the Census estimates), nineteen have Mayor-Council form of government, while the remaining four have Council-Manager government. Among all 182 cities with a population of 100,000 or more, 77 (42.3%) are organized under the Mayor- Council form, 102 (56.0%) employ the Council-Manager form, and only three (1.6%) use the Conunission form. None of these cities has a Town Meeting form of government.
The following chart lists those cities over 100,000 with their 1986 populations, their present form of government, and their rank order by population.
FORM OF GOVERNMENT IN CITIES OVER 100,000 POPULATION
State, City Population* Form of Govt. Rank
ALABAMA
Birmingham 277,510
Huntsville 163,420
Mobile 203,260
Montgomery 194,279
ALASKA
Anchorage 235,000
ARIZONA
Glendale 125,820
Mesa 251,430
Phoenix 894,070
Scottdale 111,140
Tempe 136,480
Tucson 358,850
ARKANSAS
Little Rock 181,030
CALIFORNIA
Anaheim 240,730
Bakersfield 109,150
Berkeley 104,110
Chula Vista 118,840
Concord 105,980
Fremont 153,580
Fresno 284,660
Fullerton 108,750
Garden Grove 134,850
Glendale 153,660
Hayward 101,520
Huntington Beach 183,620
Inglewood 102,550
Long Beach 396,280
Los Angeles 3,259,300
Modesto 132,940
Oakland 356,960
Ontario 114,310
Orange 100,740
Oxnard 130,800
Pasadena 129,900
Pomona 115,540
Riverside 196,750
M-C
M-C
M-C
M-C
M-C
C-M
C-M
C-M
C-M
C-M
C-M
C-M
C-M
C-M
C-M
C-M
C-M
C-M
C-H
C-M
C-H
C-H
C-M
C-M
C-M
C-M
H-C
C-M
C-M
C-M
C-M
C-M
C-M
C-M
C-M
55 97
75 77
67 135
'60
10 155
123
41 86
63 109
171
141
166
108
53 159
126
107
176
83 172
33 2
128
42 148
180
129
130
146
76 Sacramento
San Bernardino
San Diego
San Francisco
San Jose
Santa Ana
Stockton
Sunnyvale
Torrance
COLORADO
Aurora
Colorado Springs
Denver
Lakewood
Pueblo
CONNECTICUT
Bridgeport
Hartford
New Haven
Stanford
Waterbury
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Washington
FLORIDA
Fort Lauderdale
Hialeah
Hollywood
Jacksonville
Miami
Orlando
St. Petersburg
Tallahassee
Tampa
GEORGIA
Atlanta
Columbus
Macon
Savannah
HAWAII
Honolulu
323
138
1,015
749
712
236
183
112
135
,550
,610
,190
,000
,080
,780
,430
,130
,570
217,990
272,000
505,000
122,140
101,240
141,860
137,980
123,450
101,080
102,300
626,000
148,660
161,760
120,940
610,030
373,940
145,940
239,480
119,480
277,580
421,910
180,180
118,420
146,800
372,330
C-M
M-C
C-M
M-C
C-M
C-M
C-M
C-M
C-M
C-M
C-M
M-C
C-M
C-M
M-C
C-M
M-C
M-C
M-C
M-C
C-M
M-C
C-M
M-C
C-M
M-C
C-M
C-M
M-C
M-C
C-M
M-C
C-M
M-C
49 120
7 12
14 65
84 152
125
71 57
23 137
177
117
121
136
179
173
16 112
100
138
17 36
115
64 140
54 32
87 143
114
38 IDAHO
Boise 108,390
ILLINOIS
Chicago 3,009,530
Peoria 110,290
Rockford 135,760
Springfield 100,290
INDIANA
Evansville 129,840
Fort Wayne 172,900
Gary 136,790
Indianapolis 719,820
South Bend 107,190
IOWA
Cedar Rapids 108,370
Des Moines 192,060
KANSAS
Kansas City 162,070
Topeka 118,580
Wichita 288,070
KENTUCKY
Lexington-Fayette 213,600
Louisville 287,460
LOUISIANA
Baton Rouge 241,130
New Orleans 554,500
Shreveport 220,380
MARYLAND
Baltimore 752,800
MASSACHUSETTS
Boston 573,600
Springfield 149,410
Worcester 157,770
MICHIGAN
Ann Arbor 107,800
Detroit 1,086,220
Flint 145,590
Grand Rapids 186,530
M-C
M-C
C-M
M-C
M-C
M-C
M-C
M-C
M-C
M-C
C-M
C-M
M-C
C-M
M-C
M-C
M-C
M-C
M-C
M-C
M-C
M-C
C-M
C-M
M-C
M-C
C-M
16.0 3
158
124
182
131
94 122
13 164
161
79 99
142
51 73
52 62
21 69
11 19
Ill
105
163
6 116
80 Lansing 128,980
Livonia 100,540
Sterling Heights 111,960
Warren 149,800
MINNESOTA
Minneapolis 356,840
St. Paul 263,680
MISSISSIPPI
Jackson 208,440
MISSOURI
Independence 112,950
Kansas City 441,170
St. Louis . 426,300
Springfield 139,360
NEBRASKA
Lincoln 183,050
Omaha 349,270
NEVADA
Las Vegas 193,240
Reno 111,420
NEW JERSEY
Elizabeth 106,560
Jersey City 219,480
Newark 316,300
Paterson 139,160
NEW MEXICO
Albuquerque 366,750
NEW YORK
Buffalo 324,820
New York 7,262,700
Rochester 235,970
Syracuse 160,750
Yonkers 186,080
NORTH CAROLINA
Charlotte 352,070
Durham 113,890
Greensboro 176,650
Raleigh 180,430
Winston-Salem 148,080
M-C
M-C
C-M
M-C
M-C
M-C
M-C
C-M
C-M
M-C
C-M
M-C
M-C
C-M
C-M
M-C
M-C
M-C
M-C
M-C
M-C
M-C
C-M
M-C
C-M
C-M
C-M
C-M
C-M
C-M
132
181
153
110
43 50
74 150
29 -31
118
85 45
78 154
165
70 50
119
40 48
1 66
102
82 44
149
90 87
113
OHIO
Akron 222,060
Cincinnati 369,750
Cleveland 525,830
Columbus 566,030
Dayton 178,920
Toledo 340,680
Youngstown 104,690
OKLAHOMA
Oklahoma City 466,120
Tulsa 373,750
OREGON
Eugene 105,410
Portland 387,870
PENNSYLVANIA
Allentown 104,360
Erie 115,270
Philadelphia 1,642,900
Pittsburgh 387,490
RHODE ISLAND
Providence 157,200
TENNESSEE
Chattanooga 162,170
Knoxville 173,210
Memphis 652,640
Nashville-Davidson 473,670
TEXAS
Abilene 112,430
Anarillo 165,850
Arlington 249,770
Austin 466,550
Beaumont 119,900
Brownsville 102,110
Corpus Christi 263,900
Dallas 1,003,520
El Paso 491,800
Ft. Worth 429,550
Garland 176,510
Houston 1,728,910
Irving 128,530
Laredo 117,060
M-C
C-M
M-C
M-C
C-M
C-M
M-C
C-M
co
C-M
co
M-C
M-C
M-C
M-C
M-C
co
M-C
M-C
M-C
C-M
C-M
C-M
C-M
C-M
C-M
C-M
C-M
M-C
C-M
C-M
M-C
C-M
C-M
68 39
22 20
89 46
169
28 37
167
34 170
147
5 35
106
98 93
15 26
151
96 61
27 139
174
58 8
24 30
91 4
133
145
Lubbock
Odessa
Pasadena
Piano
San Antonio
Waco
UTAH
Salt Lake City
VIRGINIA
Alexandria
Chesapeake
Hampton
Newport News
Norfolk
Portsmouth
Richmond
Roanoke
Virginia Beach
WASHINGTON
Seattle
Spokane
Tacoma
WISCONSIN
Madison
Milwaukee
186,400
101,210
118,050
111,030
914,350
105,220
158,440
107,800
134,400
126,000
161,700
274,800
111,000
217,700
101,900
333,400
486,200
172,890
158,950
175,850
605,080
C-M
C-M
M-C
C-M
C-M
C-M
M-C
C-M
C-M
C-M
C-M
C-M
C-M
C-M
C-M
C-M
M-C
C-M
C-M
M-C
M-C
81 178
144
156
9 168
104
162
127
134
101
'56
157
72 175
47 25
95 103
92 18
*Population based on 1986 Estimates from U.S. Bureau of the Census.
Form of Government Key: M-c=Mayor-Council; C-M=Council-Manager; CO=Commiss ion
The percentage of large cities employing the various forms do not hold when examining cities of smaller size. A report of 4,360 cities with populations of 5,000 or more contained in the 1987 Municipal Yearbook finds that 2,082 (47.9%) have Mayor-Council form, 1,866 (42.8%) have Council-Manager form, 135 (3t) have Commission form, and 277 (6.3%) have Town Meeting form of municipal government.
Over the past 35 years, these figures have varied somewhat due to two readily identifiable factors: 1) an increasing number of municipalities whose populations reach the 5,000 mark; and 2) municipal changes in the form of government employed. The figure below illustrates the historical changes in fonns of government used by U.S. municipalities.
FORM OF GOVERNMENT IN U.S. CITIES OVER 5,000 POPULATION Year Totdl Mayor^-Council Counctl-Manager 0-nnnission Tcwn Meeting/KEM Cities No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent
1952 2,525 1,388 55.0 658 26.1 390 15.3 89 3.6
1957 2,653 1,297 48.9 834 31.4 328 12.3 94 3.5
1962 3,087 1,622 52.5 1,130 36.6 259 8.4 33 1.1
1967 3,155 1,600 50.7 1,245 39.5 243 7.7 66 2.1
1972 1,875 825 44.0 886 47.2 111 5.9 53 2.8
1977 3,881 1,803 46.4 1,704 43.9 161 4.1 213 5.4
1982 4,318 2,054 47.5 1,847 42.7 140 3.2 277 6.4
1987 4,360 2,082 47.9 1,866 42.8 135 3.0 277 6.3
Source: ICMA Municipal Yearisook for years indicated
APPENDIX I
SUHMARY OF ADVANTASE8 JUTO DISADVANTAGES
OF EACH FORM OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT
ADVANTAGESDISADVANTAGES
Weak Mayor
o Long historical tradition
o Elected representative
council to meet con-
stituents/ needs
o Has worked well in small
and rural localities
o Strong leadership with
centralized responsibility
o Facilitates policy forrau-
lation and implementation
o Power and responsibility
diffused
o Lack of strong leadership
o Political vaccuum may lead
to "bossism" and "machine"
politics
Stronq Mayor
o Too much responsibility
for one person
o Mayor may not be a
professional administrator
Council-Manager
o Professional manager in charge
of managing city
o Council retains policy control
o City run in business-like manner
o No strong, effective
political leadership
o Tendency for manager to
usurp policy functions
o Manager may be a stranger
to the city, seeking only
to advance his/her career
Comroission
o Has worked well in emergency
situations
o Sinple organizational
structure
o Swift direct implementation
of policy
o Legislative and policy
functions held by one body
o No checks and balances
o No one person with overall
administrative responsibility
o Difficult to elect legislators
with administrative abilities
Town Meeting/Representative Town Meetinq
o "Purest" form of democracy
o Allows all voters a say in
how town is run
o Deep historical tradition
o Has worked well in small
localities
o Difficult to do long-range
planning
o Challenging to educate all
citizens adequately
o Preparing warrant may be
cumbersome process
o Annual meetings often poorly
attended
•„-'
ATTACHMENT E ^
.'.-
MEMORANDUM
TO: Charter Reform Task Force
FROM: John C. Crowley, Task Force Member
DATE: January 7, 1998
RE: Possible Scenario - City-wide Election of Mayor
At our last meeting I volunteered to prepare this outline as a point of departure for discussion. It is submitted, not as a proposal in present form, rather as a "check list" for addition and subtraction. Nevertheless, the outline does reflect my personal viewpoint at this time " subject to change in accord with the persuasive ' powers of other Task Force members. The outline is derived in part from the San Leandro Charter (circulated recently), from the form used in Monrovia (as described to the Task Force by Mayor Bartlett), and from the Model City Charter (philosophically). The scenario contemplates these assumptions:
A. Mayor elected "at large," by city-wide vote.
B. Council seats occupied by members elected by district or an acceptable alternative assuring minority representation.
C. City Manager appointed by Council and subject to disciplinary or termination action by majority vote of Council.
D. Terms of office: Mayor and Council members, 4 years.
E.Form of government: "Mayor, Council, Manager form"
Proposed Powers and Duties of the Mayor:
To recommend City policies.
To prepare and present the annual "State of the City" Address.
To prepare and present policy comments to accompany the proposed City budget.
To recommend programs for the physical, economic, social, and cultural development of the City.
,*-
Subject to Council ratification, to appoint members of City commissions and committees, based upon multiple nominations (e.g., two for each vacancy) by members of the Council in accordance with applicable ordinances and resolutions.
Represent the City in communications and negotiations with State, regional, sub-regional. County, special district governments and with other cities, and to protect and provide for the best interests of Pasadena in the forefront of intergovernmental relationships and governance.
To establish and maintain "town and gown" relationships with educational institutions whereby there may be mutual benefits to the community, within the scope of Council-approved policy.
To establish and appoint Council committees subject to ratification by the Council, including committee dissolution upon majority action of Council.
To preside at meetings of the Council.
To provide leadership city-wide and to marshal citizen participation.
To be responsible for public relations and represent the City for ceremonial purposes.
To be the principal communicator in relations with commercial, industrial, institutional, charitable and cultural organizations within the City in order to achieve the greatest amount of mutual benefit and economy in the use of limited time and resources, causing the City to be "facilitator" rather than "provider" to the extent possible.
Within the proposed framework for election of the Mayor, there are several options, for example:
1. The Mayor may be qualified to vote as a member of Council resulting in continuation of seven Council posts.
2. Or the Mayor may be given a veto, but not a vote, or the Mayor might vote only to break a tie.
3. The Mayor might run for office directly, or there could be one or two other Council positions elected city-wide as well, with the one receiving the greatest number 'of votes winning the office as Mayor.
4. In situations involving that kind of competition, at one election only those seeking city-wide oftice would be considered for election, while those seeking district office might be candidates, all at one time at a separate election.
5. Consideration might be given to choices for Mayor and other city-wide offices to be addressed by "cumulative" voting or some other form of proportional representation.
In general, the comments here presume continuation of the need for a professional, experienced Qty Manager chosen by Council to deal with the day-to- day functions of City government. This presentation also presumes a major broadening of powers and duties of the Mayor. It also does not directly address the question of numbers of members of the City Council. For example, if the Mayor were to exercise veto power but not to vote, there would, logically, be five or seven members of City Council, in order to maintain an odd number.
It may be noteworthy to observe areas of Charter concern that are not addressed here. It is, probably, reasonable to assume that most are deserving of attention independently of the structural issues examined here. Not included here are such subjects as School District electoral structure, compensation of Mayor and members of Council, etc.
I hope these comments may prove useful as points of departure for exclusion or inclusion of alternate ideas.