Is Now the Time for a Strong Mayor in Tacoma?
Peter Callaghan explores the history of the Tacoma strong mayor debate in his weekend column over at the TNT. This follows Federal Way voters’ apparent decision last week to move to a strong mayor. Is it time for Tacoma to consider a change too?
While it is frequently talked about and debated, Tacoma hasn’t voted on the issue since 1970. Nationally, however, there have been two seemingly conflicting trends. While the number of council-manager cities has grown from one-third in 1985 to nearly half now, larger cities have moved the other way.
Tacoma has had a council-manager form of government for more than 50 years. The City is run by a City Manager hired by the City Council. The mayor doesn’t oversee the day to day operations of the City or hire and fire in various City departments. When many of our friends describe the job of mayor, they describe the City Manager.
So, is it time to renew this discussion once again? Do we want a strong executive mayor? Does it even matter?
Link to The News Tribune
Filed under: General
16 comments
P Patricia November 9, 2009
If we do change this, it needs to take effect AFTER the next mayoral election. We need to know that we are voting for a mayor and council that will have that power. It has always bothered me that the man (has it ever been a woman?!) running the city is not accountable to the voters! We have to convince the council to fire him. And can they do that JUST because they don’t like how he’s running the city? Or do they need CAUSE?
J Justin November 9, 2009
I agree with Patricia,
This should not be in effect until election cycle ends.
As to your comment Eric, whats the point of electing a city manager when we can just elect a mayor? So just do away with a mayor? Would the mayor be a statesmen (secretary of state) Signing proclamations, visiting cities hugging and holding baby’s on behalf of the city. We have the office of Mayor, lets give the power behind it!
M Morgan November 9, 2009
Tacoma needs change. I like the idea of having a strong mayor at the helm, but I would RAELLY like to see a full time council WITH support staff. I think that alone would shift the power away from the city manager to where it belongs – with our elected officials. I almost spat out my coffee after reading our mayor quoted in the TNT on the demolition of the Luzon – something like “if it were up to me, I would hold off on demolition.” Of course the city did not hold off. The other big question that has to go along with what form of government is best for Tacoma is what is Tacoma’s future? What is the vision? Is it to passively allow property owners to let their historic buildings go to pot? The city is a guilty party too, the Muni and the Browne’s Star Grill buildings are both currently not being maintained for the future. Is the vision to compete with every other city to try and lure big corporations or to “grow our own?” I believe change is desperately needed for the type of Tacoma I would like to see.
D Derek M. Young November 9, 2009
Hello from the not Exit 133 Derek from Gig Harbor.
Just thought I’d make a couple suggestions for our friends across the bridge since I’ve been involved in local government for 12 years now.
Tacoma does have a unique system directly electing its Mayor despite having a Council-Manager form of government. I think this has confused people over the years because the position really is just an at-large Council seat that runs the meetings and has other ceremonial duties. Almost all other Council-Manager governments elect the Mayor from their own membership.
However, having a Mayor in charge of administration isn’t necessarily a good thing either. It’s exceedingly rare that you find someone to run that is as qualified or effective as a professional manager. In almost all cases, they end up hiring a manager anyway. That’s not to say they won’t be dedicated or hard-working, it’s just that the skills it takes to be elected a city’s executive has almost nothing to do with the skills it takes to actually run it. The Legislative branch is a different thing altogether.
This can sometimes create problems in that the manager works for the Mayor, not the Council and the two can have significant policy differences. Since a “Strong Mayor” has no vote, you can end up with an administration that resists rather than works with your legislative body which is rarely healthy for city government.
In addition, you now have a manager who is now accountable only to one person rather than to several councilmembers. Usually this isn’t a big deal, but the motivation to help build consensus is significantly lower.
Certainly I understand the desire for more accountability from your electeds; we could all stand to do better.
I think there seems to be good reason to clarify the Mayor’s role in your system, but changing to a true Strong Mayor form of government brings a whole host of different challenges. It seems like you had some quality candidates stand for election and that’s always a good thing. Good luck with whatever you decide to do.
T tom waits November 9, 2009
I’ve thought about this quite a bit over the years. I think Derek (not from Exit 133) raises some good points.
In general, I favor the strong mayor system for larger cities, because the political landscape gets to be so complex and you have so many competing interests that you really need to have a separately elected mayor to check council and vice versa. In addition, as has been pointed out, a strong manager can become institutionalized and begin to operate very politically, becoming a defacto mayor without being elected.
I don’t think a large city can be fully accountable to its citizenry without an elected mayor. Moreover, that position tends to push candidates to develop a “vision” and policy agenda to go along with that vision – something that council-manager governments really have a much harder time defining.
The functionality of a government with a strong mayor does definitely depend on a professional administrator, such as a manager or deputy mayor. Smaller strong mayor governments that lack the capacity for such a position can become quite dysfunctional, if the elected mayor is a incompetent manager.
Midsized jurisdictions probably do best with a council manager system, because the complexity of managing council business and the organization requires CEO-type skills, but does not necessary present as politically complex an environment as a large city might. The thin line separating politics and management can be more successfully maintained in midsized cities.
I do tend to think that small towns should have a mayor of the people, where business is of a more face-to-face nature and everyone knows everyone else. A strong mayor can act as the mouth of the city and direct the tenor of public dialog.
For Tacoma, I am concerned that we would not at first have a broad, qualified set of CEO-skilled politicians to populate the ballots. However, I think this would change as more viable candidates considered moving into public service. In the short term, a professional administrator would be critical.
I am also a fan of moving to a professional city council with salaries commensurate with responsibility and workload. It should be a financially viable first job – this would also increase the field of potential office holders, and allow council members to devote most of their time to the business of the council – and balance the equation between the city administration and council.
I think Tacoma is getting closer to a time where this shift should be made.
T TacomaFan November 9, 2009
Not now with our incoming mayor. Bad idea.
N NSHDscott November 9, 2009
I prefer to have a professional running the city over a politician, so I wouldn’t support a strong mayor system. That said, I was pretty disturbed that our city manager was so easily able to override the desires of the mayor and city council majority to tear down the Luzon. There’s little incentive on the manager’s part to listen to residents and business owners. I think there’s too much power there, and I’d be supportive of a system that lets the city manager run the city, but gives the city council (maybe with extra voting weight given to the mayor, maybe not) the power to overrule the manager.
S Squid November 9, 2009
I wish I believed that having a strong mayor would inspire a higher caliber of mayoral candidates capable of managing the city.
But I don’t.
J Jordan Rash November 9, 2009
In a way, hiring a city manager to do the work of a mayor is pretty inefficient. Who, exactly, hires the city manager anyway? If the people are intelligent enough to vote in a mayor, then they are putting enough faith in that person to run the city effectively. Thus, I support a strong mayor so that I am better able to hold him/her accountable should I deem city management to be ineffective as well as to allow that person to have the leeway to implement various programs and services according to his/her agenda.
N Nick November 9, 2009
Personally I see the advantages and disadvantages of both structures, but find the advantages of a strong mayoral system to outweigh those of our current arrangement.
Accountability for running the city is currently too far decoupled from the public, and even if an executive position beneath a strong mayor was required, that decoupling is reduced dramatically.
With a strong mayor system, decisions are left up to those held accountable to the public, while the execution of those decisions can still be left to a professional staff.
6 6ther November 10, 2009
I would vote to implement a strong mayor system almost exclusivley for the chance to hold someone accountable when things go wrong.
Who do I hold accountable for Tacoma’s failures right now?
T Tacoma1 November 10, 2009
That would be Eric Anderson, our City Manager who works for our elected city council and mayor.
They can fire him at will, I do believe.
M MMRussell November 11, 2009
Either way there are basically two set roles – the Policy Maker and the Manager.
Typically in either system – there will be a day-to-day manager. (Call it a city manager in one or a deputy mayor in the other) that function is the same – Next you have the policy maker – call it the council in one or the mayor in the other. That function is also the same…
Council – Manager
Mayor – Deputy
It’s not the system that makes the biggest difference it’s how they are operated and perceived by the public. If you like strong mayor think of the all the current council members together as being the strong mayor and the Anderson as the deputy mayor.
If you like the system we have but want it to be more accountable then just remember we elect the council they select and/or retain the city manager. It’s not the system it’s how we think about it and make them accountable.
J Jennifer Campbell November 11, 2009
No one should be running a city who is not accountable to and voted in by the people. Tsar Eric is accountable to no one- maybe the city council and technically isn’t he their boss. Most citizens I have spoken to didn’t realize that our mayor is just an extra city council vote and an ambassador for Tacoma. Why are we paying the salaries of a city manager and a mayor and their staffs? It is time for the citizens of Tacoma to decide whether they want a strong mayor (not the City Club and not the City Council).
T tom waits November 11, 2009
One of the primary differences between a council manager system and strong mayor is that there is a separation of powers in a strong mayor format that there is not in a council manager government.
This is also the primary benefit.
While the city manager in a council manager government does not technically sign legislation, she or he is very much involved in policy development, as well as the horse trading needed to assemble a council majority vote.
The fact that a manager is at-will is somewhat blunted by the fact that it requires some assembly of council votes to dismiss the manager, which in itself can be hard to achieve absent a specific catalyzing event. The flip side of this is that managers have to be very conservative and cautious in their actions.
Lastly, legislative bodies think and act differently than individuals…meaning that the leadership shown by a council in a council manager system does not equate with the leadership style of a strong mayor, and a council in a strong mayor system.
T Tacoma1 November 11, 2009
Eric Anderson works for the City Council. They hired him. If they wanted to, they could replace him without delay. If the citizens voted in a bad mayor, it takes four years to correct the mistake.
In theory, the City Manager position allows a smaller city to select the best candidate available from a much larger talent pool. The council members that we have elected, are there to ensure that the voters wishes are being respected.
Personally, I can see both sides of the issue. I do think that with a strong mayor type of government, we could be asking for “Professional Politicians” to set up shop in our town. With the stakes being higher on the outcome of a mayoral race, the money needed to run for office will be higher, and the entire process could become more suspect than it already is.