Model City Charter Revision Project - Eighth Edition
Option Memo
Issue: Election of Mayor By and From Council vs. Direct Election
At-Large of Mayor
Seventh Edition: Sec. 2.03 of the 7th Edition of the Model City
Charter contains two alternatives for the election of the mayor. Alternative
I states "at each regular election a mayor shall be elected for
a term of ____ [the same terms as other council members] years."
Alternative II provides that "the city council shall elect from
among its members officers of the city who shall have the titles of
mayor and deputy mayor, each of whom shall serve at the pleasure of
council." The Commentary on sec. 2.03 says the model expresses
no preference between the two alternatives: "The Model provides
two alternative methods for electing the mayor. Which one is used will
depend on local preference and tradition." The lack of preference
between the two methods marked a change from the 6th edition, which
recommended that the council choose the mayor, while presenting the
direct election at-large form as an alternative.
The Commentary on sec. 2.03 goes on to discuss the pros and cons of
each alternative. With respect to the direct election form, it says
"more than half of the cities operating with the council-manager
form use the direct election alternative (Alternative I). In many cities,
particularly the larger ones, it is believed that this method increases
the potential for mayoral leadership by giving the mayor a city-wide
popular support base. This is particularly important when all or most
of the council members are elected from districts. A disadvantage of
this method is the possibility that the mayor will be at variance with
the council majority on some important issues."
In reference to council-chosen mayor, the Commentary says "in
many other cities it is felt that local policy leadership can best function
through a cohesive team of council members which chooses its leaders
as mayor. In those cities, Alternative II, election of the mayor by
and from the council, is used and the possibility of conflict between
the mayor and the council majority is avoided. However, cities using
this method should avoid particular practices which diminish the prospect
of effective leadership. For example, rotation of the office of mayor
among members may preclude the emergence of a respected leader who will
be able to acquire experience and increase his or her competence in
the exercise of leadership skills. It may result in the reality that
the true leader of the council is not the mayor, a situation which may
wrongly be interpreted as one of inside dealing and secret manipulation.
An awkward alternative is to automatically designate the mayor as the
council member who receives the largest number of votes. In councils
elected from districts, council selection of the mayor presents the
mayor with conflicting roles - district and citywide."
Analysis of Commentary: The arguments set forth in the commentary
may be refined along the following lines:
With respect to the direct election form, more than half of the cities
operating with the council-manager form use the direct election alternative
(Alternative I). This method focuses attention on a city-wide choice
between alternative policy approaches for the city that tend to be
obscured across multiple at-large and/or district council campaigns.
The clear articulation of policy options for the city as a whole is
particularly important when all or most of the council members are
elected from districts. Media coverage of the mayoral race tends to
be higher than is coverage of other races and there may be a higher
level of voter awareness of issues that results from the direct election
of mayors. The consequence of these phenomena is to increase the potential
for mayoral leadership by giving the mayor a city-wide endorsement
of his or her platform and by generating a popular support base. A
disadvantage of this method is the possibility that the mayor will
be at variance with the council majority on most important issues(1).
Mayors must work to win the continuing support of other council members
and not presume that an electoral "mandate" will produce
support from them.
In specifying Alternative II, it may be preferable to provide for annual
election of the mayor and mayor pro tem with the option of reelection.
This seems more consistent with the logic of the original commentary,
as reflected in this slightly revised version:
An alternate position is that local policy leadership can best function
through a cohesive team of council members chaired by a mayor that
it chooses. Election of the mayor by and from the council reduces
the likelihood of conflict between the mayor and the council majority.
The council majority is able to select the person whom it feels is
best able to lead it. However, cities using this method should avoid
particular practices that diminish the prospect of effective leadership.
Having the mayor serve at the pleasure of the council as opposed to
a one-year renewable term could diminish the likelihood that the mayor
would take any stand opposed by the majority. Rotation of the office
of mayor among members shifts the office regardless of capability
or support from other members of the council, limits the amount of
experience the mayor can acquire, and precludes increasing his or
her competence in the exercise of leadership skills over an extended
period of time. An awkward alternative that can lead to extensive
infighting on the council is to automatically designate the mayor
as the council member who receives the largest number of votes in
the general election. Since all members elected could have been mayor
with more votes, they may begin jockeying for position to improve
their standing in the next election. In addition, those designing
a charter should consider the potential contradiction between electing
all council members from districts and council selection of the mayor.
This combination makes the mayor responsible to the entire electorate
but accountable only to the voters of one district.
The question then becomes whether a directly elected mayor or a council-chosen
mayor is more likely to promote effective leadership by the mayor and
council. There are clear advantages and disadvantages with each approach
as noted in the Commentary. Although a mayor with a city-wide voter
support may be better able to effectively lead a council, he or she
has no more power to do so and may go a separate way rather than focusing
on pulling the council together. The council-chosen mayor have internal
support but typically has not had the opportunity to present a mayoral
platform to the voters. If the issue is one of council dysfunction or
weakness, the cure could lie in finding new ways - structural or other
- to make council a more effective legislative body that go beyond whether
the mayor is chosen by the people or by council.
Three Options: The Committee should adopt one of the following
positions by the end of the December 7th meeting:
- The Model Charter shall continue to present both alternatives without
expressing a preference. The Commentary remains accurate today.
- The Model Charter shall continue to present both alternatives without
expressing a preference. The Commentary needs revision, the extent
of which will be decided upon at the Dec. 7th meeting.
- The Model Charter should state a preference for one of the alternatives.
The Commentary needs to be revised accordingly.
(1) Presumably, this discrepancy will be reconciled in the next election
by change of either mayor or members of the council.
|