1. To: Professor Richard Zais
From: Kevin Wren
Re: Journal Entry 2 – “Professional Manager v. Political Leader”
January 21, 2016
According to our readings by the International City/County Management Association (ICMA),
lectures, guest presentations, and information by the National League of Cities (NLC), there are
five general forms of local government: mayor–council, council–manager, commission, town
meeting, and representative town meeting. Of these five broad forms of government, I would
choose between council-manager and mayor-council because both have numerous strengths
yet also tradeoffs depending on the municipality in question.
Born and raised in Seattle, I’ve always held a small dream of being mayor and acting as
the executive of the city. However, the political and partisan baggage of the position slows
implementation and would undoubtedly frustrate me. My career has been in public relations
and operating behind the scenes, so the idea of an invisible, apolitical city manager executing
the will of the council and community is greatly appealing. Yet, it is difficult for me to imagine
living in a small town and championing it after living in the big city for so long.
Below is a more in-depth look at the tradeoffs I perceived with each form:
Mayor–council
“Occurs in 34% of cities” according to the ICMA Municipal Yearbook, and is the second most
common form of local government in the US. Additionally, the form appears in mostly older,
larger cities with 40 of the 68 cities (~59%) in the US with populations over 250,000. Small city
mayors tend to be the de facto chief of the city council and serves a mostly ceremonial role as
executive. like in New York, Chicago, and Seattle.
● Positives: Large cities often also have sizeable budgets for providing services and
developing the city’s infrastructure. Unlike a city manager, a mayor is more visible
within the community and their position can leverage more resources or administrative
support than a manager. The mayor represents the people’s will, so their policy
positions carries more political weight with a council than a manager.
● Negatives: Mayors need to navigate the political gauntlet with their council on issues of
policy and administration as well as general elections and campaigning. A large
constituent base also provides problems due to the sheer number of stakeholder groups
and competing policy priorities. Mayor’s are also responsible for overseeing city
departments in addition to policy development. Certain public failures related to
municipal services, like unconstitutional aggressive policing practices of Chicago and
Seattle, can entangle a mayor due to their position on behalf of the community and
their responsibility to lead and manage city services effectively.
Council–manager
This is the most common form of local government in the US and, according to surveys by the
ICMA, this form grew from 48% of US cities in 1996 to 55% in 2006. It is most prevalent in cities
with populations over 10,000 and represent the majority of municipalities with populations
between 5,000 and 250,000 people. Some examples of large municipalities with this form are
Phoenix and Salt Lake City.

2. ● Positives: City managers benefit from being apolitical by providing neutral counsel for
the council and not responsible for creating policies like a strong mayor. Despite their
neutral stance, managers’ work can bleed into policy development if necessary. As the
dichotomous model truly intended, according to Svara, city managers are not barred
from policy creation, they merely should approach it with caution. Manager’s main
concern is enacting the policies of the council by leading and directing implementation.
This limits their scope of work compared to a strong mayor, allowing them to focus and
provide a focus for those they manage.
● Negatives: Unlike a mayor, a manager is beholden to the will of the council and not a
term limit. Taking a policy stance that results in a negative outcome from the
perspective of the council’s constituents may result in a manager’s termination. Also not
meeting one’s goals set with the council can be cause for termination. Managers
typically work in smaller municipalities in more rural settings that have smaller budgets
and are affected by negative economic shifts, like the recession or depression. They are
an expense for the council and not a necessary cog like a strong mayor, who requires
much more support fo be impeached.
Commission
● The oldest form of government in the US and exists today in less than 1% of cities. It
typically occurs in cities with populations under 100,000. I like to think of this form as
diet manager-council or mayor-council without the cost or help a manager or mayor
provides.
Town meeting/Representative town meeting
● Allows all eligible voters a voice in local policy decisions representing a purer form of
democracy as compared to mayor-council or manager-council forms. This form is more
prevalent than the commission form, but is practiced in only 5% of municipalities
because the number of stakeholders with policy power has a direct effect on the
government’s efficiency and effectiveness.
Managers: policy implementation::Mayors: policy creation
Community
Mayor
Policy
development
Overseeing
city services
Council
Policy
development
Community Council
Policy
development
Manager
Provides
policy counsel
Manages city
services
Implement
policies

3. In the figuresabove,Icreated a simple diagramtoindicate the difference betweenmayorsand
managersinthe policyrealm.Itisclearthat while bothserve the community,amayoris chosen through
an election while amanagerisappointedbythe council.The divisionbetweenmanagersandmayorsis
cleardue to who eachpositionisaccountable to:the community forthe mayorand the council forthe
manager.The two positionsare delineatedfurtherbytheirrole asexecutiveof cityservices.A mayoris
lessdirectlyinvolvedinoperationsthanamanagerbecause the mayor hasadditional executive
responsibilities,includingpolicydevelopment.A managerislessconcernedwithdevelopingpolicies
than simplyenactingthe will of the council andprovidingtheirinsightsintothe feasibilityof apolicy.Itis
clearin the diagramthat a mayor competeswiththe council ondevelopingpolicies while amanager
receivesdirectionfromthem.Tensionsbetweenthe mayorandcouncil arise andcreate political and
partisanturmoil thatcan slowpolicydevelopmentandimplementation.A manageronthe otherhand,is
usedto make implementationmore effectiveandefficientbycreatingmore control of a particularpolicy
as notedbyour guestspeaker, RobertJean.
Afterconsideringall thesetradeoffsbetweenmayorandmanager,Iwouldratherbe a manager
than a mayor ingeneral.Jobsecurityismuchhigherwithmanagersasthe numberof municipalitiesis
greaterand offersmore placementopportunities.Runningforelectedoffice alsotakesconsiderable
fundraisingandcampaigningagainstothercandidatesforsuccess.A manageronthe otherhand is
vettedbythe council andan interimcitymanager,like inWoodinville.A prolongedjobinterviewismuch
more appealingthana publicrace for office because the costismuchless.The responsibilitiesare also
more straightforwardfora managerand requireslesscompetitionwiththeirpartnersasthe manageris
workingonbehalf of the council insteadof workingwithoragainstthem.
However,if Iwasable to choose the particularcityI wouldmanageror be mayor of,I wouldopt
to be the mayorof Seattle.In thishypothetical situationwhere electionsare moot,the executivepower
indevelopingpolicies,managingcityservices,andrepresentingthe will of the peopleismore appealing.
For all the reasonsI wouldlove tobe a managerin executingpoliciesand makingsure the citywas
runningwell,Iwouldlove tobe mayor.The constantnegotiatingandcompromising onpolicy withthe
council wouldbe aggravating,butIimagine takingordersfromthe council asa manageron a policyone
doesn’tagree withwouldbe more aggravatingbecause amanagerhaslesspolitical powerinbarteringa
policydirection.Additionally,mycomprehensive knowledgeof the citywouldhelpme oversee services
and have a betterunderstandingof communityneeds.