What Form of Government Should Rockville Have?
Jun 21, 2010 7:00 - 20 Comments
There has been some controversy recently over some statements that Mayor >Phyllis Marcuccio has made as they relate to the office of Mayor. It is true that the role of Mayor, as proscribed in the City Charter (Max van Balgooy has a useful discussion of this) is almost identical to that of the other Council members. The Mayor is the ceremonial head of the city and has some limited special powers, but the chief powers and responsibility lie with the city manager.
Brigitta Mullican has commented a few times on Rockville Central about the need to respect the office of Mayor (as well as that of Council member) — sentiments with which I agree wholeheartedly. As the ceremonial head of the City, the Mayor represents Rockville.
Mayor Marcuccio has been quoted as thinking it is worth considering whether we might want to change the way we approach the offices of Mayor, Councilmember, and City Manager. I think that is a reasonable discussion to have. Rockville is growing and is projected to grow yet more (as Mayor Marcuccio’s State of the City address made plain). How best should we govern ourselves?
I do think it is worth noting that Councilmember Piotr Gajewski floated the idea of a “strong mayor” form of government back in February 2008, at his first town hall meeting. Here’s the relevant part of my recap of that meeting:
Council Member Gajewski seemed to surprise many in the room when he asked what they thought of the idea of switching to a “strong mayor” form of government. “In the current model,” he said, “accountability goes out the door.” With a strong executive, who is elected and has control, someone is accountable in a way a group of elected officials is not.
A few citizens said that the problem was not the form of government, but the quality of oversight that the council is currently exercising over staff. More than one citizen said they felt as if council members were “led” by staff, and not given enough options. (One participant pointed out that the council is indeed given three or more options for most issues, and that they are free to follow or reject advice of staff.)
Mark Pierzchala, who had been silent for the whole meeting, spoke up. “We just had a city election,” he said. “We had eight candidate forums. Tens of thousands of doors were knocked on. Not once did the form of government for the City come up. Now, with the election over with, the subject comes up. I am not necessarily opposed, but I think that a campaign is the right time to begin raising those questions. Now is not the time.” [Note: Councilmember Pierzchala had not been elected to council at this time, nor was he running yet. He had recently run for mayor.]
Gajewski disagreed, saying, “I think during the campaign, you are running within the system,” so it is difficult to campaign on changes one would make to the system.
The issue goes beyond individual personalities. I believe it is worth having a debate — a public debate — about whether the City has grown to the point where we should shift from a council-manager form of government, as we now have, to a mayor-council form of government, as some have proposed.
Most mid-size cities in the United States use a version of Rockville’s council-manager approach to governance. (Rockville is a mid-size city.) In this form of government, the City Manager is the chief executive and is responsible for all facets of City administration. The Mayor and Council are responsible for passing and enforce ordinances; appointing the City Manager, City Clerk, and City Attorney; adopting a budget, levying taxes, and borrowing money.
Most large cities in the United States use a “strong mayor” version of the mayor-council form of government. In this form of government, “the elected mayor is given almost total administrative authority and a clear, wide range of political independence, with the power to appoint and dismiss department heads without council approval and little, or no public input. In this system, the strong-mayor prepares and administers the city budget, although that budget often must be approved by the council.” (That’s from Wikipedia.)
My opinion is that the City has not yet grown sufficiently to merit a strong mayor form of government, nor is it anticipated to do grow large enough anytime soon.
Such a form of government would bring with it the need to dramatically increase the compensation of the Mayor and Council, as these would become just about full-time jobs. (For an example, consider Montgomery County.) I don’t see the political will for that in town.
However, it is a good debate to have and there are good arguments in favor. Councilmember Gajewski made a good one (having a strong mayor increases political accountability) but surely there are other good arguments too. (On the other hand, there are good arguments against: Abuses under strong-mayor governments led to the development of the council-manager form.)
What do you think?
Follow on Twitter
One of the great advantages of the council-manager form of government is that it shields the city government from political pressures in hiring and contracting.For all the constructive criticism I heard about Rockville during my council campaign last year, I never once heard anyone accuse the City of favoritism in hiring or contracting.This is an advantage not to be taken lightly. We prize the good, clean government we run in Rockville; our council-manager form of government is an important factor in our success.
no one would be “for” disrespect, and i think it’s a red herring to keep harping on this.disagreement is a normal, healthy and necessary part of our form of government. disagreement and debate on issues are NOT a show of disrespect. that’s a simplification that short changes all members of the mayor and council. our form of government works for our size city.
One need only look to the differences between Rockville and Washington DC civil servants’ records to understand the validity of Tom’s statement.Yes I understand that I’m not comparing applies to oranges. At the same time, ask yourselves how many Rockville officials have gone to jail versus how many DC officials have gone to jail.Kansas City Missouri is an excellent case in point. Until the 1960s it was run by the Prendergast machine. In the 1960s it adopted a form of government in which the city manager played a larger role. In recent years the city manager has been weakened, and as a consequence a number of events have occurred which have made the city the laughingstock of the country.The mayor and council of Rockville control the employment status of the city manager. They are also not bound to follow the advice of staff. The M&C set policy; the staff carry it out. If the M&C set a policy that, say, absolutely no new buildings could be erected in Rockville for say the next 5 years, the staff is bound to carry that out. The M&C would probably lose in court at some point, as they would be violating property owners’ rights, but that is besides the point in my example. If the any of the staff didn’t feel they could carry out the policy they could resign….or be fired, eventually, for not performing (although not be the M&C).Yes, an extreme example, yet one that illustrates the point, however crudely.Another aspect of this is: even with a strong mayor, Rockville would still have a city council. Assuming that the strong mayor would be separate from the council, and that a five-member council would be retained, the strong major could, and occasionally should, find the city council to be a check on his/her actions. The council would hold the purse strings, for example.The problem is that what happens so often is that the strong mayor works around the council through his/her control of the bureaucracy. And the strong mayor and his/her cronies cannot run a city nearly as well, or nearly as cleanly, as a professionally trained nonpolitical staff.There is no real interest in Rockville to changing to a strong mayor. The interest expressed is by those who are unable to achieve their ends in the current system. That failure speaks more to those persons’ skills than to any deficiency is Rockville’s city manger form of government.
The council-manager system has served Rockville well. We keep the city policies in line with the will of the electorate through a policy and budget making Council, while having the advantage of a professional, non political city manager. Running a city government isn’t something that everyone can do equally well. It is a profession. Better to have a professional to perform that duty, yet retain accountability by virtue of that fact that the city manager serves at the pleasure of the council. In a strong Mayor system, the Mayor would have to be a full time position. People who aren’t able to quit their day job wouldn’t be able to serve. This would likely bar the participation of federal employees. Indeed most people aren’t in a position to take on a new elective office. Once they’ve done so, they may become dependent enough on this income source (since they would have to quit their day job) that they may do inappropriate things to stay in power. Indeed, that was the impetus for the creation of the council/manager form of government. So count me in agreement with Tom.
The discussion here on RC is presenting excellent viewpoints on what citizens believe is best for their City. I love Rockville because we have people who will speak out on serious governance issues. Keep the comment flowing. Remember we all have a point of view and we are allowed to disagree.You all are presenting GREAT comments.!
Changing the form of government does not have to be an all or nothing thing. We could make incremental changes to the current form of government so that it better suits our needs.One simple change we could make would be to give the Mayor the responsibility to prepare and present a budget proposal to the council each year. Right now that responsibility falls to unelected city staffers. The Council would of course still be able to modify it, but the budget submitted by the Mayor would be the point of departure for debate. I know from working on the defense budget that a lot of power rests in the person or people who formulate the budget proposal each year, and it seems to me that such power should reside in an elected official.
Another voice here for retaining the current strong City Manager/weak Mayor in Council form of government.Something important is in danger of being forgotten here, to wit: Rockville is extraordinarily well managed and governed by any objective standard. I have lived in jurisdictions up and down the east coast, under town, city and county governments. I never never lived in another jurisdiction as high-functioning as Rockville. City services are excellent. The staff is professional and approachable. The mayor and council are extraordinarily accessible. Opportunities for citizens to get involved abound.I really think we would do well to pause and appreciate just how well we have it before we contemplate major constitutional tinkering.Further, the one thing we do seem to lack at the moment cannot be fixed by any amount of constitutional tinkering: that is, sincere mutual respect and mutual consideration among all the members of our city council. That is unfortunate. It does not do the city any good or any credit. I would encourage the Mayor and Council each and all to reflect, not simply on the flaws of their colleagues which may seem both obvious and annoying, but on their own flaws and what they are bringing to the table which is creating this unattractive and unhelpful pattern of petty discord. I for one would greatly appreciate it. And more– I intend to put a very high value on demonstrated and sustained civility as I evaluate candidates for reelection should they choose to stand.
before we begin judging and electing people based on perceptions and manners instead of qualifications, responsible positions and fair and reasoned actions taken on behalf of ALL (not just some) citizens, i would like folks who make this claim to provide specific examples of “petty discord” vs. substantive disagreements. i believe from watching meetings and speaking personally to the mayor and council that each work extraordinary hard to understand difficult issues and often have honest differences of opinion, which they are entitled and duty-bound to express. we are not seeing debates and then 5-0 votes. we are seeing lots of 3-2 votes.
Ms. Defino asks me some questions, to which I reply with two points:1. I said I would place a high value on demonstrated and sustained civility, not an exclusive value. To state that in expressing this view, I am advocating “electing people based on perceptions and manners instead of qualifications” mischaracterizes what I actually said. This rhetorical tactic–taking a statement and reformulating it into a negative caracature of itself in the process of replying–is, I submit, itself an example of the tone against which I write. It’s clever debatesmanship, but not ideally civil.2. I am challenged to provide specific examples of petty discord. I submit the following, drawn from this recent article in the Gazette:http://www.gazette.net/stories/06162010/rocknew213440_32548.phpMembers of the Mayor and Council are quoted in this article as referring to other members as “unprofessional,” and “griping.” It is the use of these kinds of adjectives, which personalize disagreements by casting aspersions on motives or character, that I consider petty discord. It’s not the substance of the disagreement that bothers me–its is indeed good to have such agreements thrashed out. I am speaking instead against the style in which the argument and discussion are being too often waged.
Mr. Ledbetter:I agree with almost everything you wrote – especially that “Rockville is extraordinarily well managed and governed by any objective standard.”Also, for the record: while several years ago, I floated the idea of examining other possible forms of government in order to measure the sentiment on this issue, I have never formally proposed that Rockville change its form of government; indeed, I am quite comfortable with our Council/City Manager form (albeit, I do feel that we could benefit from some small charter adjustments that would clarify our model). However, one small request please:When you write “Members of the Mayor and Council are quoted in this article as referring to other members as ‘unprofessional,’ and ‘griping,’” why not be more explicit (and accurate)?Indeed, it is only one member of the Council that is quoted as using the word “gripe” and the word “unprofessional” does not even appear in the article (I believe it may have appeared in another article, uttered, incidentally, by the same one Council member). Reading your sentence it is easy to infer that several or even all members of the Council are carelessly throwing words around. Perhaps that is so, but the article that you cite certainly does not provide the facts to support that broad a thesis.
erik–i think you are reacting too defensively. you said you would put a “very high value” and i didn’t say it would be the only factor.i did ask for evidence to support your position. that’s not a rhetoric trick or a negative characterization, but simply a request for detail to better understand the lack of civility comments.i was not only speaking to you but to others who repeat the same statement.
Dear Councilman Gajewski and Theresa–Thanks for your replies. Theresa, I did feel you came at me a little strong, but I apologize for overreacting.Councilman, I declined to attribute the remarks to their authors because I wanted to focus on the words themselves, not the speakers–I’m not trying to start a public tally of naughty and nice quotes as it were. The attributions are in the article itself.And Piotr and Teresa, yes, I do personally see this kind of rhetoric-often in sidebar remarks, not on the floor in open council sessions– as an unappealing feature of recent councils which has carried over into this one, perhaps despite the best intentions of the council members themselves. I can’t take time to rummage through the Gazette for more instances, but I “have the sense”–loose and anecdotal though it may be–that tempers have been getting shorter in recent councils, and interpersonal language a bit snippier.I think this pattern likely predates the current council. Like a standing wave in traffic that persists long after the original fender-bender is gone, this drift toward corseness may have its own momentum now, even though original reasons and personalities from earlier councils are gone and perhaps already forgotten.But that’s all buy the by. All I truly wanted to do in my original post was recommend a little wisdom I learned long ago from a group I was once part of that was very helpful to me.That is: when one finds oneself in repeated conflict, try to be mindful of what you are bringing that it stoking the conflict. Even when your case is right and your cause is good, turning it around like that may help you find a way to lower the temperature and create a more calm space in which your good views can be heard on their merits.Yes, it sounds pollyannaish, and there are personalities who can make the practice a challenge, but I have personally found it a great help to the extent I can practice it.With best wishes to all, and thanks for the exchange of views,Erik
As a brand new resident of Rockville, and knowing little about the genesis of the discussion, based on what I’ve read I would come down resoundingly on the side of council-mayor. Rockville seems to work as a well-managed city, and a more powerful executive does nothing to appeal to me, particularly after the last 9 or 10 years of politics in this country. More civility, more discussion, less authoritarianism….the mayor-council model doesn’t equate to that necessarily, but it certainly seems more prone to fostering it!
Welcome to Rockville, Doug!
For those interested in this topic:Last month, Councilmember Britton requested that the Council schedule a time to talk about Mayor, Councilmember and City Manager roles. His request was supported by Councilmember Pierzchala.As a result, this is coming before the Council on Monday (7/19) as agenda item no. 11, Charter Discussion.
Can someone refresh in my mind the problem we’re trying to fix with the proposed strong mayor alignment? I’ve been a RV resident for 13 years and think the system works darn well as presently constituted.
Tom, No one has proposed changing our form of government to a “strong mayor.” Just the opposite, there was concern recently that under present law, our “weak mayor” form is not stated strongly enough.
Councilmember Gajewski, Thanks for the clarification. I guess I was confused. If you read Brad’s original article it sounds like you were floating the strong mayor idea. In any case, I’m against it for Rockville. I do agree that given the recent bickering over roles it would be good to clarify them as needed.
Just to be a little more precise, Councilmember Gajewski *did* ask his town hall attendees what they thought about shifting to a system with a mayor whose office has more authority. This was in early 2008. He was seeking input, not necessarily proposing the idea. It did not gain much traction at the time. In the most recent discussions, the talk has centered, as he correctly states, on *reaffirming* the status quo so there is no confusion as to the powers of the office of mayor.
Brad – thanks for the clarification.