History and analysis of the commission and city manager plans of municipal government in the United States

Author's Preface

The purpose of this monograph is three-fold. In the first place, the writer aims to trace the origin and development of the commission plan and the city manager plan — the two latest forms of municipal government in America — with a view to ascertaining the defects of the older forms of city government and the conditions which have led to a nation-wide movement for the re-organization of city government.

In the second place, the writer attempts to explain, through a detailed analysis of statutes and charters, the structure of municipal government under the new regime, and to show wherein the new plans have departed from the older forms of city government in the United States.

Finally, the writer endeavors to discover the extent to which the alleged advantages of the new plans have been sustained in actual experience. His studies reveal the fact that the published claims of achievement under the new plans have almost without exception emanated from officials in charge of the government. An accurate estimate of the actual success of the commission plan and the city manager plan, is rendered difficult by the fact that it is well-nigh impossible to disentangle the improvements which are due to the organization and administration of the new forms fror^ those which are due to that awakening of civic consciousness >/hich inevitably accompanies changes in government.

377463

The writer avails himself of this opportunity to express his thanks to many friends for their readiness in giving information and furnishing materials for this monograph. It is to Professor Benjamin F. Shambaugh and Professor Frank E. Horaek that he feels the deepest obligation. From the beginning to the end both Professor Shambaugh and Professor Horaek took active interest in the work and were never sparing in giving encouragement. To Dr. Dan E. Clark the writer is indebted for criticisms and suggestions after the work had reached the manuscript stage. Furthermore, he desires to express his appreciation of the many courtesies extended to him by the library staff of The State Historical Society of Iowa and of the State University of Iowa.

Contents

I. Introduction 7

II. Development op American Municipal Organization 20

III. Origin of the Commission Plan of City

II Development Of American Municipal Organization

It is difficult to understand why there has been of late so strong a sentiment in favor of the adoption of the commission form and the commission-manager plan of city government, unless one first has clearly in mind the general trend of American municipal development. The movement towards city government by commission or by commission-manager is not an isolated municipal experiment, but a phase of a general tendency; and in order to appreciate the real significance of this particular form of municipal government, to grasp the causes which called it into being, some knowledge of the history of American municipal organization is indispensable. A brief survey of the institutional history of American municipal government from the colonial period down to the end of the nineteenth century is, therefore, necessary.

"American municipal government has its historical origin in the chartered boroughs or municipal corporations established in several of the English colonies during the seventeenth and first half of the eighteenth centuries."^'' Again, colonial municipal corporations had their origin in the English borough. Thus, there is a continuous development of the institutional history from the English borough, through the colonial municipal corporations, to the American cities of to-day. The influence of English conditions on the American charters, both colonial and modern, is clearly visible. In the first English charter granted in 1665 to the city of New York, it was expressly stated that the officials of the city should be "Knowne and called by the Name and Style of the Mayor Aldermen and Sheriffe, according to the Ciistome of England in other his Majesties Corporations. "'^ In commenting on the first Boston Charter of 1822, Nathan Matthews says that "in substance, the organization provided by the charter was simply an adaptation of a form of municipal government which has existed for centuries in the commercial towns of England. "«^ A few words on the system existing in England in the seventeenth and early part of the eighteenth centuries are therefore necessary for a proper understanding of the beginnings of American city government.

The typical English borough about that time has been described by Bishop Stubbs as "a close corporation of a mayor, aldermen, and council with precisely defined organization and numbers — not indeed uniform, but of the same general conformation— possessing a new character denoted in the name of 'corporation' in its legal sense. "^<' Uniformity in English borough government at that time was impossible, because each borough was incorporated through a separate grant by the Crown of its own special charter. As a consequence the powers and functions of these corporations varied widely. As a rule the sphere of action of the English borough about that time was a very limited one. "The management of local police, the judicial administration, the direction of markets, and the charge of the ancient town property sum up the local interests under the control of the borough governments even in the larger towns. "^^

Such was the model on which the original American system of municipal government was framed. During the colonial period twenty corporations were created by the Governors as representatives of the Crown. ^* All these charters were accepted by the inhabitants of the incorporated area: they were not imposed on the people since it was a principle of the English law that the King could not create a corporation without the consent of the people affected thereby.*'

In all cases the grant of a borough charter provided for the creation of a governing body, which followed very closely the pattern of English municipal organization during the latter part of the seventeenth and the early part of the eighteenth centuries. The principal authority in these boroughs or cities was the Common Council, which was composed of the mayor, a recorder, and a number of aldermen or assistants, all sitting together as one body. After the English pattern, the mayor, the recorder, and the aldermen were vested with certain judicial functions in addition to their duties as members of the Common Council. But contrary to the prevailing English system, the councilmen and aldermen were elected "by a popular vote under a franchise which everywhere included all of the well-to-do classes, and generally a large proportion of the residents, though in no case was manhood suffrage established. "» "With few exceptions, aldermen and councilmen were elected for a term of one year. In Philadelphia, Annapolis, and Norfolk the English system of the close corporation was followed. Here the governing body was a close corporation, that is. "the aldermen and councilmen held their- positions for life, and vacancies among the aldermen were filled by the corporations (^. e. by the Common Council), and for councilmen by the mayor, recorder, and aldermen. "^^

Following the English precedent, the mayor was in no case chosen by popular vote. In the close corporations he was elected from the existing aldermen by the corporation, and in other cases he was appointed by the Governor of the Province. Whether elected or appointed, the mayor held office for a term of one year ; but re-appointment was not uncommon. The mayor was the presiding officer at all the meetings of the aldermen and of the Common Council, and his presence was necessary to constitute a quorum. He had no power of appointment unless delegated by the council, and in no case had he a veto power. In Philadelphia he did not even have the right to vote in council ; but elsewhere he had such a power. He was also charged with the execution of the laws and ordinances and therefore had rather a wider police power than had any other member of the Common Council. "These conditions tended to center the administration to a considerable degree in his hands; while his influence in municipal affairs was further increased by the fact that he was usually a man of much experience in the affairs of the corporation, and that in practice he held office for a number of years. Thus, even during the colonial period, the mayor became something more than a dignified figure-head, and was a real force in the municipal government. "<*

The functions of the colonial borough included judicial, legislative, and administrative duties. The judicial functions, which were vested in the mayor, the recorder, and the aldennen, were relatively more important than the other functions. The mayor, the recorder, and the aldermen were each justices of the peace, and while sitting together they formed a local court of record. In some instances they were members of the county court. '^^

As to the legislative powers, the municipal corporations were authorized to "make, ordain, and establish such laws and ordinances as should 'seem to be good, useful, or necessary for the good rule and government of the body corporate' and to alter and repeal the same."^®

The administrative jurisdiction of the colonial corporations were "almost exclusively over matters of special interest to the small urban communities, and seldom included any of those matters for which there was a general system over the entire province. "^^ But as local needs increased with the increase of the population in certain places during the eighteenth century, and as the corporations had no authority under the charter to supply these needs, frequent additional grants were conferred on the corporations, not by the Governor, but by the colonial assembly.

Thus, American municipalities during the colonial period, though modelled on the then existing English boroughs, differed from the latter in several distinctive features. "Close corporations were the exception ; the mayor was already an active official in the city government; central control over the municipalities existed from the first in the Governors' power of appointing mayors ; while the way was paved for a more active control through the special legislation of the assemblies in response to the demand of the municipalities for larger powers than those conferred in their charters. ' '^^

Such, in brief, are the chief characteristics of the American colonial municipal system. The most striking feature of it is the fusion of the legislative, administrative, and judicial duties in one and the same body of persons. This fusion of duties has led President Goodnow to conclude that the present commission system of government "returns to the original form of city government in the United States in that it concentrates all powers, administrative and legislative, in one authority. "^^ Para-

24 COMMISSION AND MANAGEE PLANS

doxical as this statement may seem the commission system of city government has evolved logically from the colonial framework of local government. During the colonial period when the functions of the municipalities were few and when the local needs to be provided for were not pressing, the machinery of government which had to carry out these functions and to satisfy the necessary local needs was not required to be highly organized. Indeed, government under such conditions was very simple: a single board of a few members could administer the entire government, and in the colonial municipalities this proved to be

the case.

But as conditions have gradually changed and when public health and safety, education, poor relief, the improvement of highways, and scores of other new problems have come within the horizon of the activities of the municipality, new organs have been added, from time to time, to the existing machinery of government, and consequently the mechanism as a whole has become more and more complex. This tendency was illustrated by American experience in municipal government during the first and second quarters of the nineteenth century, when various offices were created and different boards or commissions were either elected or appointed to take charge of the various functions and to solve the numerous problems which burdened the municipalities because of the rapid changes in the industrial and social conditions of the city.

Such developments continued for some time without criticism ; but finally the people discovered that the complex and complicated machinery was not satisfactory and that the principle underlying the existing structure was fundamentally wrong and unsound. The result has been a reaction against the cumbrousness of municipal machinery — a reaction which came during the latter part of the nineteenth century and manifested itself in the movement for the simplification of the machinery of government. The logical outcome of this reactionary movement has been the return to the original principle of municipal organization through the creation of the commission form of government, in so far as the vesting of all the municipal authority in a single body is concerned. Indeed, the commission form has been regarded by an eminent authority on the subject as * ' the climax of a well-defined movement, from the influence of which hardly a single large city in the country has been entirely exempt"** — a fact that is evidenced by the history of American municipal development.

Differentiation of American municipal government from the British borough type had already proceeded to a considerable degree even during the colonial period. But the Revolution and the establishment of the State Constitutions brought about still greater changes in municipal government in this country — particularly with respect to the position which the city henceforth occupied in its relation to the State government.

The substitution of elected for appointed Governors changed the entire relationship between the city and the State. In the first place, the Governor ceased to appoint the mayor — this function being transferred to the State executive council. Secondly, the charter-granting power was transferred from the executive to the legislative department of the State government. To be sure, a number of charters appeared after the Revolution ; but they were issued by the State legislatures in the same manner as other statutes were enacted. "By this change these charters could not claim the privileges of special grant which could not be violated : they were simply legislative statutes, and as such liable to be altered, changed, or revoked by subsequent statutes.""

Although the first legislative charters did create municipal government practically in conformity to the then existing organization, there were still marked differences between the new municipal constitutions and the old ones. Not one of the new charters was based upon the close corporation idea; and the popular election of the councilmen was firmly established as the fundamental principle of American municipal government.**

Such changes can be well illustrated by the history of the city of Philadelphia during this period. With the Revolution the first charter of Philadelphia, known as Penn's Charter granted in 1701, came to an end. But "when the war cloud had passed by, the evils arising from the lack of systematic government became so imminent that the memories of past grievances vanished before present necessities, and in 1783, a petition largely signed was presented to the legislature and referred to the city members."^' As a result the second charter of Philadelphia was passed by the legislature on March 11, 1789. By this charter the government was made essentially representative, and the administration of local affairs was vested in the mayor, aldermen, eouncilmen, and the recorder. The aldermen and councilmen were elected by the people, the mayor by the aldermen, and the recorder by the mayor and aldermen.

This charter and others enacted during this decade are important as "marking the complete legal supremacy of the legislatures over the municipalities, since not even the existing charters are recognized as barring any measure the legislature might feel disposed to enact. "^« Indeed, this decade has been well termed as "a time of special crisis [in municipal development], an epoch of transition from the old English to the new American type of urban government."^''

It may be noted in this connection that several salient features stood out prominently in the political philosophy of the statesmen of this period. Chief among these was Montesquieu's theory of the separation of powers : that is to say, the powers of government should be distributed among three distinct departments— legislative, executive, and judicial. Another characteristic of the political philosophy of the time was a preference for the bicameral legislature composed of members representing different interests or geographical units. The theory of the separation of powers and the idea of a bicameral legisature constituted the most important features of the system of the eighteenth century political philosophy. Indeed, the principle of divided power or of checks and balances had become an axiom in political science and a maxim of constitutional government. The fundamental idea underlying the whole system was that unlimited power should not be vested in any department.^^ These principles, which were formulated in connection with the re-organization of national and State governments, and which were sanctioned in the organic laws of the States and the nation, were gradually transferred to municipal government. Thus the dominant factor in municipal development during the last decade of the eighteenth century and the first quarter of the nineteenth century was the influence of the so-called "federal analogy ' '.

In the closing years of the eighteenth century a series of new charters had been passed and several old ones amended. Among them, the charter of Baltimore enacted in 1797 and the act passed in 1796 to amend the Philadelphia charter were particularly important because they marked the beginning of the application of the "federal analogy" to municipal government. In Philadelphia the amendment to the charter introduced the bicameral system. The aldermen, recorder, and mayor were deprived of all legislative powers, which were now exclusively vested in a select council of twelve members and a common council of twenty members who were popularly elected and who acted in separate bodies.^'' A third house or division of the council, consisting of fifteen aldermen, was to be appointed by the Governor. They v/ere to hold office during good behavior and had all the powers formerly vested in the board of aldermen, "legislative powers only excepted." The mayor was elected annually from the fifteen aldermen by the select and common councils in joint session. According to the charter, the duties of the mayor "besides that of an alderman of the said city, shall be to preside in the mayor's court when present, to promulgate the by-laws, rules and ordinances of the corporation and to pay special attention to the due execution and fulfillment of the same".^" He had no power of appointment, no control over city officers, and no veto power.

The Baltimore charter of 1797 vested the government of the city in a mayor and a bicameral city council. ' ' The lower house or First Branch was composed of two members elected annually by popular vote from each of the eight wards into which the city was divided. The upper house or Second Branch was composed of one member from each ward, elected by a miniature electoral college made up of one elector from each ward chosen by popular vote at the time of electing the members of the First Branch. The mayor was elected at the same time and in the same manner as the members of the Second Branch of the council. "^^ By subsequent legislation the electoral college system for the choice of the members of the Second Branch was abolished, but it was retained for the election of the mayor who was given the same veto power over the acts of the council as the President of the United States has over the acts of Congress. But in the distribution of powers the national model was not exactlyfollowed, for in the matter of appointment the mayor was restricted to two candidates for each office nominated by the coun-

cil.««

The beginning of the nineteenth century marked no distinctive changes in municipal organization. There were few charters enacted in the first two decades, the more important being the charter of New Orleans issued by the Territorial legislature in 1806, and the first city charter of Detroit enacted in the same year. The New Orleans charter followed practically the lines already laid down in the earlier charters. The officers were a mayor, a recorder, a treasurer, and a number of subordinate officers ; and the council was composed of fourteen aldermen, two from each of the seven wards into which the city was divided. The mayor was appointed by the Governor of the Territory, but provision was afterwards made for his election.^'

The charter of Detroit vested the government in a mayor appointed by the Governor, and a city council composed of two chambers of three members each — all elected by the people. The mayor was given an absolute veto power in reference to all the acts of the council and he had the power to appoint all city officers except the register. The council was given extensive powers, the exercise of which was subject to the mayor's veto.^*

The consequence of this incorporation of the chief features of the national and State governments in municipal charters was very unfortunate. The system of checks and balances in municipal government, instead of safeguarding the interests of the people against the arbitrary and ill-advised acts of public officers, became an obstacle to the prompt and efficient performance of municipal functions which were constantly growing with the growth of cities. These changes, the autonomous mayoralty, the bicameral council, and the executive veto, which made their appearance in municipal charters before the close of the second decade of the nineteenth century and which distinguished the municipal organization of tliis period from that provided in the colonial charters, were made "not because those who were responsible for them had any experience applicable to municipal conditions — for at the time these changes w^ere made no one can be said to have had this experience, as the modern city is a very new thing, — but because these changes were in accordance with principles which it was universally believed had been successfully applied in the national and state governments."^* With the exception of the changes just mentioned, the operations of municipal government during the first two decades of the nineteenth century had not undergone any marked transformation from those of the colonial period.

The period from 1820 to 1850 was characterized by the further development of the features already noticed in the previous period. At the time, the appearance of new tendencies was not lacking. In the new Constitution of New York, adopted in 1822, important changes in municipal government were introduced. The appointment of the mayor was henceforth taken from the Governor and vested in the city council.*"® Three new charters enacted about the same time went a step further and provided for the popular election of the mayor. These were the charters of Boston and St. Louis (1822) and Detroit (1824). But the mayor was still in almost all instances not a very important officer in the administrative system of city government. The charter of Boston illustrates this point. The financial, executive, and administrative powers of the government were vested partly in the mayor and the aldermen, to whom the powers of the selectmen of the town were transferred, and partly in the city council to be exercised by concurrent vote of both branches. "Beyond the power to appoint committees which this position gave him, the mayor was little more than a figure-head ; and although he was enjoined by the charter ' to be vigilant and active at all times in causing tlie laM^s for the government of said city to be duly executed and put in force', and 'to cause all negligence, carelessness and positive violation of duty to be duly prosecuted and punished', the Legislature omitted to clothe him with powers necessary for the performance of these duties."®''

The charter of St. Louis vested the administration of the affairs of the corporation in a mayor and a board of aldermen, all of whom were to be elected annually by the qualified voters. Both the mayor and the aldermen were required to possess a freehold estate within the city limits, and were vested with powers not differing from those conferred upon like officers in other cities/^

The Detroit charter of 1824 provided a considerable number of elective officers. Among them were a mayor, five aldermen, a marshal, a supervisor, an assessor, a collector, and three constables, all chosen annually. The other officers, including a recorder, a treasurer, and a clerk, were to be appointed by the mayor and the aldermen. The maycr, the recorder, and the aldermen were to constitute the common council, and the recorder was to be the vice mayor of the city.*'''

The New York charter of 1830 was another typical charter of the period which indicated fairly well the general trend of the time towards the elaboration of the administrative principles already introduced during the previous decades. The charter of 1830 "proposed nothing short of an entire remodelling of the city government after the pattern of the federal and state constitutions, but the spirit of their too general enactments was little carried out in practice. ' ''"> By this charter the city council was divided into two chambers "for the same reason which has dictated a similar division of power into two branches, each checking and controlling the other, in our general government."''^ The mayor was given the right to veto any order or resolution of the council, although his veto could be overridden by a two-thirds vote of both chambers. The charter also provided that the executive business of the municipality should be performed by separate departments organized and appointed by the council. From the mere fact that the mayor could veto the ordinances of the council, however, it should not be inferred that the mayor was made the chief executive of the city. For, as has already been noticed, there were several commissions appointed by the council to perform the executive business of the city."

During the two decades from 1830 to 1850 numerous new municipalities were established and new charters enacted. Professor Fairlie mentions forty cities with a population of 30,000 or more that received their first charters during these two decades.''^ The chief feature in all these charters were the extension of manhood suffrage and the tendency towards popular administration. A few examples of these charters may be taken to illustrate this general trend in charter-making at the close of the second quarter of the nineteenth century and subsequent years. The charters of Cleveland (1836), Chicago (1837), and Milwaukee (1846) are typical of this period.

The Cleveland charter of 1836 vested the government in a mayor and a council. The mayor, the members of the council, the treasurer, and the marshal were all to be elected annually. The council was composed of three members from each ward and as many aldermen as there were wards, elected on a general ticket, but no two of them were to be residents of the same ward. The number of wards was fixed at three, but the council had the power to increase or change the number. ' ' This is certainly an extraordinary system, establishing a city council composed so curiously of local and general elements, with power to increase or decrease its own members at pleasure."'''*

In the Chicago charter of 1837" two tendencies appeared: first, the extended use of the suffrage in the increase of elective officers, and the tendency of the mayor and council to divide functions. The principle of popular suffrage, though recognized in the new charter, was by no means unrestricted in its application. Indeed, property qualifications for the suffrage generally prevailed throughout the country during this period and Chicago was no exception to the general practice. But the restriction in the new charter was not excessive : a normal tax of three dollars paid within one year before the election entitled the resident to the privilege of the suffrage, and the members of the governing body were required to be free-holders. The significance of the Chicago charter in this regard was that by imposing such low property qualifications it opened the way for the introduction of universal manhood suffrage at the earliest possible date. It was only four years later that all property qualifications were removed.

The governing body, as provided by the charter, was a council composed of the mayor and twelve aldermen. The mayor was popularly elected for a term of one year. As far as administration was concerned he was still unimportant : he was simply a presiding officer of the council. He had no appointing power and could not veto any ordinances passed by the council. In reality the charter "prepared the way for a separation of administrative and legislative functions by removing the mayor from the control of the council in his tenure, but in the development of his power it did not radically follow out the division of powers at the time."''^

The council was by far the most important body. Indeed, the government provided by the charter of 1837 was an administration by the council, M'hich was supreme in all essential matters. "The supreme position of the council in the charter of 1837 naturally gave it complete control of the municipal patronage. It elected annually a numerous array of administrative officers, who possessed more or less discretionary authority, subject finally to the will of the council."" But the supremacy of the council was only of short duration and its powers were greatly curtailed by the charter of 1847, which, in accordance with the prevailing tendency to increase the functions of the electorate, made the city attorney, the city collector, the treasurer, and one policeman for each ward elective and directly responsible to the electorate.''^ Thus, "popular administration has been preserved and fostered in the American municipality to the exclusion of a trained service, by extension of the suffrage to many offices, which, in their nature, require previous preparation."''^