by Jim Svara

Purposes of developing model charters

Model city charters provide guidance to citizens and officials about the best approaches to local government structure and process. The nature of the proposals-as distinct from their substantive content-has varied over the seven editions of the model charter. As the process for revising the model charter gets underway, it is useful to reflect on how previous editions have related to the prevailing thinking about local government and practices in use. The models have reflected differing combinations of emphasis on the following purposes.

1. Innovation: developing new approaches to local government structure and process.
2. Advocacy: promoting acceptance of reform ideas, either new or stated in previous versions of the model.
3. Conservation: when reforms are widely accepted, a third role is to "explain" to local officials and citizens themeaning and importance of the reforms that have been accepted in their local governments and to defend the continued use of these reforms.
4. Adaptation: altering recommendations to reflect new conditions and practices. The focus is on adjustment rather than innovation.

The first two editions were remarkable for the extent of innovative ideas they contained. The recommendation of a strong elected executive in the first edition was such a drastic departure from prevailing practice that it gained little acceptance. The second edition presented a different but equally innovative model-"a new municipal program." Although the council-manager form contained in the second edition represented an even greater departure from the constitutional model to which Americans were accustomed and was used by only a few cities at the time it was endorsed, the council-manager form of government won acceptance by a growing number of cities over time.

In the third through the fifth editions, there was little innovation. The primary purpose shifted from advocacy of adopting practices that most cities did not use in the third edition to explanation and defense of practices that most cities did use by the time of the fifth edition.

"New" approaches appeared in the sixth edition and to a greater extent in the seventh, but the practices recommended were more adaptations than innovations. The model charter revision process attempted to respond to new conditions and challenges in American cities and to give legitimacy to practices that were becoming increasingly common, in particular the use of district elections and the direct election of the mayor. The 7th Edition was more innovative in the sense that it articulated a new rationale for the mayor as a facilitative leader. The institutional practices recommended to enhance the position of the mayor as a political leader, however, were not new nor is the idea that the mayor can be a leader in his or her own right-not just the leader of the council. The commentary sought to defend the use of model institutions and provide a rationale for adapting them by considering alternative approaches. It was a model with alternatives.

As a new revision process begins over one hundred years after the first model charter, it should be recognized that the current edition is not a source of new ideas or a challenge to the prevailing assumptions of local officials and citizens as they consider how to improve the performance of their government by altering the structures and processes that it uses. The 7th edition provides guidance and is educational-part advocacy, part conservation, and part adaptation-by informing readers why the institutions of local government that have become widely accepted continue to have value and what the essential features of a well-designed government are. The context for the 7th and the proposed 8th editions, however, is very different than at the beginning of the reform movement. In 1897 and 1915, there were virtually no well-designed local governments in operation in the United States. Today governments that incorporate model charter principles are the norm. To provide information and insights not available from other sources, the new edition could go farther in examining how to handle complex issues within the current structure. This would be a more sophisticated approach to the adaptation purpose of the 7th edition. In addition, the model charter might again attempt to be truly innovative by broadening the scope of issues addressed. Expanded guidance about adaptation and innovative ideas would not take the place of advocacy and conservation but would build on them.

Types of Recommendations

In the suggested approach, there would be three types of recommendations provided.

Advice about Adopting Charters: The Basic Model Charter

The core structural issues and traditional recommended practices will be presented. This discussion provides the foundation for other types of recommendations.

Expanded Advice about Adapting Charters

In the current revision process, it is important to reexamine more fully than in the past whether any changes in the recommendations for core charter provisions should be made. Citizens and officials in many communities need help in examining whether special conditions or challenges may indicate the need for adaptation of their existing charter. The discussion of options should make it clear why the essential features of the model charter are important and point out the beneficial effects that they can have. Beyond the basic approaches, however, some local governments may choose to consider unique approaches. The model charter should help these communities diagnose their conditions and consider options with the best information available about the consequences associated with each option. There should also be more attention given to recommending features of the mayor-council form of government for cities that use or prefer to choose this form.1 It is important to remember that over half of the mayor-council governments (even when small cities are excluded) to not provide for a city administrator. Most of these cities are unlikely to adopt the council-manager form, but more could add a central administrative position staffed by a professional administrator to their government.

Innovative Advice that Goes Beyond the Charter: New Approaches to Community Governance

Beyond these questions related to charter provisions, the process could also examine the elements of sound community governance in the 21st century. Basic charter provisions are key elements of sound governance, but they are not the totality.2 Other practices need to be proposed as well to meet the needs and respond to the conditions of communities today. If pursued, this approach would be a substantial departure from that used since the second edition3 in several respects.

• First, the recommendations will deal with matters that go beyond charter provisions. A discussion of new approaches to community governance should address what can be accomplished through the charter in achieving sound governance, but examine other practices and processes as well. Presumably, these measures need to be flexible and adaptable. Therefore, they should not be included in the charter since this constitutional document is appropriately hard to change. It is important, however, that they not undermine charter principles. For example, a proposal to resolve all policy questions by internet referenda would probably be rejected because it would undermine representative democracy. A new approach to community governance, however, may appropriately provide for more and different kinds of direct democracy than are currently in common use.
• Second, new approaches to community governance will go beyond "settled knowledge" about what works. Just as the authors of the 2nd edition made recommendations based on an analysis of problems and the conceptual case for a new approach but little direct experience or evidence (except from other countries), the section on community governance would consider new approaches even though their efficacy is not fully established. A distinction might be made between "recommended approaches"-ordinances, activities, processes-that have a demonstrated capacity to address an important aspect of community governance, and "innovative approaches" that have promise but are more experimental.
• Third, new approaches to community governance will go beyond the boundaries of an individual local government and deal with issues that are not clearly resolved. Still, the model of governance should deal with the reality that many of the greatest governance challenges in urban America cannot be addressed within the boundaries of single jurisdictions.

In summary, I propose for discussion that the current process have three elements.

1. Examine and presumably reaffirm the basic charter provisions that have been endorsed since the 2nd edition. This presumption is based on the expectation that a careful examination of the conditions in local governments, the evidence about local government performance, and the "logic" of optimal local government performance will lead to an endorsement of a model charter based on the principles of unitary government, representative democracy, and professional administration. The recommendations will reflect the increased appreciation of the importance of innovative political leadership and responsible professional leadership in effective governmental performance. In this aspect of the process, the focus will be on describing and explaining why the basic model provisions in the charter contribute to the best results for most local governments insofar as a governmental charter can shape performance. The presentation of the basic charter provisions might even be simpler than the current version, since the focus is on helping citizens and officials grapple for the first time with basic questions of putting their organizational structure on a sound foundation.
2. Examine special conditions in some local governments that may lead to considering charter provisions that depart from the model provisions. This is different in subtle ways from the "model with alternatives" found in the 7th edition. The argument is not that any local government will be well served by choosing from the menu of alternatives but rather that some cities may have distinctive or exceptional conditions for which non-traditional approaches are appropriate. The distinctive conditions may be quite common. For example, in part A of the process, the practice of electing council members at-large may be reaffirmed. There are clear advantages in having all the members of the council represent all the citizens of the community. It is quite common, however, in communities that are distinctive because of their size or diversity for other approaches to defining the constituency of the council member to be recommended. District elections alone or in combination with at-large elections may be preferable in these communities.
   
   Other conditions may be more rare. The difficulties of achieving the proper blend of representative, political, and professional leadership may be so great in certain local governments that special charter provisions regarding the position of the mayor should be considered. The analysis conducted in this part of the process would seek to determine how one recognizes the special conditions that call for an unusual remedy and what the elements of the remedy are. Furthermore, the analysis should also carefully consider what the potential negative consequences of the remedy would be. For example, the analysis should note that the substantial enhancement of the mayor's position could weaken the representative leadership of the council and the professional leadership of the city manager. As suggested above, this is not a menu with standard options, but rather a special section of the menu that examines atypical choices to meet unusual circumstances (with an explanation of potential side effects.) In considering these special approaches, the participants in the revision process obviously go beyond the standard reform practices that are established in part A. [See sample below.]
   
   As an extension of A and B, the revision process should also consider more fully recommendations for the normal and special provisions in elected executive forms of government in cities and counties.
3. Examine and make recommendations concerning structures and processes outside the charter than can advance the quality of community governance both within individual jurisdictions and across jurisdictions. Examples of areas that might be considered are the following:
• citizen participation
• neighborhood governance
• regional governance
• utilizing new information technologies to promote involving and responding to citizens
• contracting out and privatization
• incorporating nongovernmental agencies and organizations in the work of local government
• ethics

In this part of the process, attention should be given to the interaction between charter provisions and other practices with guidance given about how to promote compatibility between the two. It is also important that the analysis help officials and citizens distinguish between "fads" that will not improve performance and new approaches that offer good prospects for positive impact. There is an obvious risk that the revision process could be overwhelmed by the wide range of topics that could be considered. Hopefully, the participants in the revision process will have the ability to identify the aspects of model community governance that are most important at the present time and focus their attention on these.

The parts reflect the needs of different audiences or "users" of the charter. Part A is well suited for the "first-time" users. The most common example is probably a community that has never done anything to transform its government from a weak mayor-council government by committee with limited staff. Because of growth or other challenges, it needs to organize itself better. The basic charter provisions are a useful guide. Part B is for "advanced" users. These would include communities that already have basic reform provisions but feel the need to examine their practices and consider whether adaptation is in order or those communities considering a change in form. The commentary in this part should not lead users to make changes for the sake of change but to carefully analyze their situation and the advantages and disadvantages of change. Communities with problems in the governmental process and cities that mandate a periodic review of their charters are examples of these advanced
users. Another group is cities that are examining whether they should shift from a general law to a home rule charter. For example, in California, the home rule charter can provide some additional authority for the city but also opens up the possibility of other structural changes. These advanced users are not well served by the existing model charter. Indeed, many have already adopted it but now consider questions that go beyond the basic model.

Part C could be of interest to any community that wants to go beyond their charter structure to incorporate other innovations that address challenging new governance problems.

The time has come for a re-examination and revision of the National Civic League's Model City Charter to address both basic and advanced questions about local government structure. The time may have come as well for incorporating the model charter into a comprehensive set of recommendations for New Approaches to Community Governance.

Illustrative example: Distinctions among basic recommendations, alternatives, and special provisions and between discussion of charter provisions and new approaches to governance

Note: some may not agree with the logic underlying this example and many more details could be provided. It is offered simply to show how it is possible to make recommendations that vary in their scope of application.

It is obvious that a key issue in the revision process will be the role of the mayor.

A basic recommendation is that the mayor be a facilitative leader who does not have executive powers that separate the mayor from the council.

Alternatives are those contained in the 7th edition. Mayors may be chosen from within the council. There are clear advantages to this approach. The council can choose the leader it wants and either retain that person or choose to give several members the opportunity to exercise the special responsibilities of the mayor's office over time. About a third of the council-manager cities still use this approach, including a majority of cities in California. Any city, however, may want to adopt the alternative of electing the mayor directly. This approach potentially enhances the political leadership of the mayor and gives the incumbent a mandate for a program of actions sanctioned through the electoral process. Approximately two thirds of council-manager cities already use direct election of the mayor.

Special provisions may be considered under unusual circumstances. In a small number of cities, the council is fragmented to such as extent that the potential benefits of representative democracy are not being fully realized. The manager's accountability may also be weakened by the absence of clear direction and consistent oversight from the council. When this condition persists and becomes endemic, it may be beneficial to consider giving the mayor special powers that go beyond direct election and other provisions, e.g., giving an annual state the city address, that strengthen the mayor's voice as a political leader. When the only remedy is to give the mayor additional leverage over the council and the ability to focus the city manager's attention on key priorities, the mayor may be given empowering provisions in the charter, such as a formal distinct role in the budget process and the authority to nominate the city manager to the council.

The potential negative consequences of these changes should be recognized. Cities face a difficult dilemma in empowering the mayor. On the one hand, the mayor can be a force for promoting cohesion. Empowering the mayors can give them more tools to work with and encourage a wider range of candidates to seek the office. On the other hand, making mayors different and more powerful can both encourage them to go their own way and ignore other members of the council and also weaken the council and produce resentment among other council members. One could argue that enhanced authority for the mayor within the council-manager form should not be necessary, but it may be an "insurance policy" in unusual circumstances that provides an internal remedy for dealing with a very fragmented council. Even empowered mayors, however, should develop their skills as facilitative leaders and not rely on their special powers. The powers should be used only in an emergency and as a last resort.

Thus, charter recommendations could be divided into three types: basic provisions, alternative provisions, and special provisions. For some provisions, there may be no alternatives and/or no special provisions. Basic and alternative provisions would be included in Part A-the basic model charter. Special provisions would be included in Part B.

Part C on new approaches to community governance would offer recommendations about practices adopted by communities to enhance leadership and promote dialogue and consensus building. These might include mayoral task forces or community-based visioning processes. Part C will contribute to the recognition that changes in performance can be promoted by new approaches that go beyond changing the charter.

1. The recommended features of the mayor-council government contained in the 7th edition deviate from practices in most cities that use this form with regard to the chief administrative officer. The 7th edition recommends that the mayor appoint and remove the CAO without council involvement and that the mayor determine the responsibilities of the CAO. Most cities provide at least for council approval of appointment of the CAO, and many (the proportion is not known) define qualifications for the CAO or assign functions to the CAO in the charter.
2. Governance refers to the process by which communities democratically establish goals that reflect common aspirations and needs, arrive at policies and programs to meet these goals, carry those policies and deliver services responsively and effectively, and make the best possible use of the limited resources of local government.
3. When the first two charters were drafted, there presumably were no clearly established limits on the kinds of issues considered nor general agreement about what proposals should be made.