Read and answer the provided questions

Political Science 1

Local Government: The City

Lesson goals: To briefly describe city government and to discuss the question of “who really runs a city?”

1. What are “cities”?

Cities are part of an ancient pattern: organized centers of people, wealth, and culture found in early Egypt, Greece, Italy, Mexico, Mesopotamia, Peru, Asia, etc. From their beginnings, cities came to be associated with sophistication and progress. For Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, Athens was home of nobility and culture, and true humanity was inconceivable outside the city. In Europe, cities flourished with the decline of the feudal system and represented oases of freedom that were not subject to the iron-clad rules, castes, and the traditional hierarchies of rural areas. The very roots of our language illustrate this celebration of the city: civility, civilization, citizenship are all words connected with cities and urban life.

But cities have always had their critics in the United States. There has existed a certain competition and friction between the urban and rural areas or, in the more vernacular, between “city slickers” and “rural hicks.” This is a bit of a paradox, since cities were idealized by earlier civilizations, as explained above. This anti-city bias was a common theme in early America. Thomas Jefferson declared that cities were “pestilential to the morals, the health, and liberties of man.” Jefferson preferred the ideal of a nation of sturdy agrarian virtues. As discussed in our lesson The Personality of the President , Jefferson envisioned America as embodying a democratic, laissez faire agrarianism. Of course, the first census undertaken in our country in 1790 revealed that 95% of the American people lived on farms. Today, more than 80% of our population lives in urban areas. This shift, as well as increasingly common and unifying communication and transportation facilities, has lessened this anti-city perspective. U.S. cities, in reality, are centers of wealth, culture, and population, as well as challenges which accompany human activity… much like the rest of the world!

As might be expected, governing cities reflects our pluralistic system. Conflict and competition over “who gets what, when, and how” is part of our urban fabric. Because cities (and other local governments) are primarily responsible for providing services which we all utilize every day, the structure and operation of urban government is critical to our quality of life. Cities and local government provide water, sewage, trash collection, road maintenance, schools, law enforcement, fire protection, electricity, and many other basic services we take for granted. Or, if not directly provided by a city, county, or other local government, these essential services are regulated by them. Although modern cities lack the features of sovereignty applicable to a nation or state, their importance to our daily lives is obviously very significant. As explained in your California Government and Politics Today textbook, city governments have enormous responsibilities to residents and are also probably the most accessible to the public. It may seem impossible to understand how cities are governed, especially since there are 19,519 of these municipalities in the United States according to the 2012 Census of Governments conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. Fortunately, certain shared features have evolved and aid in understanding how city governments are organized and function. These common characteristics are explained below.

2. City charters

As discussed above, our nation was composed almost entirely of rural communities and dispersed towns when it was formed. With the exception of New York, Philadelphia, and Boston, very few cities existed. Even though most Americans now live in urban or suburban environments and these communities may be popularly known as a municipalities, boroughs, towns, villages, or even “cities,” such identification does not automatically confer residents with the ability to elect representatives empowered to govern their local community. Unlike counties, which are created by the state, cities are formed when a group of citizens come together and successfully petition the state to grant a “charter” for their locality. As explained in your California Government text on pages 115-116, the most common reason for requesting greater local control is citizen dissatisfaction with county government services or decision-making. For a city to be officially recognized, it must be incorporated, it must have a charter. City charters are similar to state constitutions in that charters describe governmental powers, delineate boundaries, provide for methods of finance, and authorize elections and appointments. Charters share another characteristic with state constitutions: they are often voluminous, sometimes running several hundred pages!

There are four types of city charters in the U.S.:

· Home rule. Home rule is a very popular form or feature of incorporation. It allows residents to draft a charter, which is then placed before the voters for approval. Home rule charters can also be granted by the state legislature or via provisions in the state constitution. Home rule charters are appealing because they allow a city to modify its charter without seeking new authorization by the state government. City voters themselves can approve changes to their governmental framework.

· Special act. The special charter is the oldest form of incorporation still in use, although it has fallen out of favor in recent years. These are custom charters enacted by the state legislature specific to one city. Their design is very time consuming because their provisions are specific for each city. For every new city, there must be a new charter. Special act charters are not uniform and provisions may vary widely between these charters. Special act charters have been criticized as an unwarranted interference by the state legislature in the purely local affairs of individual cities. Also, amendments to special act charters must be approved by the state legislature, which can be a very cumbersome process.

· General act. General act charters grew out of dissatisfaction with special act charters and their haphazard nature. General act charters are standardized for all cities rather than customized as is the case with special act charters. However, general act charters quickly came to be viewed as too rigid and not accommodating for local differences.

· Classified and optional. The classified system provides for a series of general charters, with each class applicable to cities within a certain population range. This allows for several different standard charters, with large cities granted the same charter, smaller cities guided by a charter designed for their population category, and so on. The optional charter system is somewhat like the numbered combinations on some restaurant menus… the state offers the proposed city a number of optional provisions from which it can select. When combined, classified and optional charter provisions provide quite a bit of flexibility for incorporation without employing the unwieldy special act process. Optional charters are becoming increasingly popular.

3. Forms of city government

Your California Government text (see pages 117-118) explains there are two broad forms of city government: the mayor-council type and the council-manager arrangement. There is also one other form that is on the decline and now used by only about 100 cities nationwide: the commission system. As you might guess, there are numerous variations of these three basic forms due to the great number of cities in the United States. City governments exercise both executive and legislative powers. But unlike the typical bicameral legislatures at the federal and state level, city councils are almost always unicameral (i.e., comprised of just one chamber, not two). City governments do not usually include a judicial branch, as justice is almost always dispensed by state or federal courts. Even traffic citations are nowadays most often adjudicated in a local branch of a state court system, even if the petty trial court is labeled as a “municipal court.” (As discussed in previous lessons, there are exceptions in a few states where local justice of the peace and similar courts may still exist somewhat independently of state court jurisdiction.)

Mayor-City Council. The mayor-council form is historically the most common variety of city government and is especially prevalent for cities with more than 1 million in population. It is modeled after the federal and state governments with a separate chief executive and legislature. Serving in the executive position is an independently elected mayor, with an elected city council serving as the legislative branch. The mayor is not a member of the city council, which sets its own agenda and selects its own presiding officer. The city council is composed of either district elected or at-large members. Based on the relative power of the mayor, there are three types of mayor-council governments:

· Weak mayor. This arrangement inherits the Jacksonian spirit of splintering government into many small parts, none of which can do a great deal of harm or good. Strong reliance is placed on the city council for making policy and handling administrative powers. The mayor is not truly the chief executive because the office has only limited or no veto power. The presence of many administrative boards and commissions operating independently from the city government also limits the elected city government, most notably the mayor. City councils operating in the weak mayor system are powerful, with both legislative power and significant executive authority accorded to the legislative branch by charter. In some cases, the mayor is mostly a figurehead, competing with other elected officials for power. In other instances, a mayor may use informal powers flowing from a strong political party organization or community-based coalitions to increase mayoral influence with the city council.

· Strong mayor. In this type, the mayor is more dominate because of formal centralized power. Formal powers derive from charter provisions providing the mayor with appointment and removal authority, a significant budget role, the veto, staff assistance and administrative oversight. The mayor directs the administrative structure, appointing and removing department heads. While the council has legislative power, the mayor exercises veto power. The city council does not oversee daily city department operations. The “Achilles heel” of the strong mayor system is that a mayor can be elected because of his or her political acumen even if lacking management skills. Such a person can be detrimental to city services provided to the public.

· Hybrid. The hybrid structure is a compromise between the Jacksonian model embodied in the weak mayor system and the centralized, integrated power model found in the strong mayor arrangement. The hybrid form will perhaps become the most prevalent type of mayor-council governments because many cities are moving in the direction of centralized budgeting, purchasing, and personnel controls but still wish to retain independent boards and commissions not responsible to the mayor.

Council-Manager. The council-manager form was a reformist innovation devised under the Progressive Era of the 1910s. This arrangement has become quite popular for smaller cities. The council-manager system recognizes the separate functions of politics and administration. Typically it consists of a council elected at large, with the council choosing a professional, career-oriented administrator brought in to manage the city bureaucracy. This appointed, nonpolitical city manager serves as chief executive and is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the city. The city manager proposes a city budget, appoints department directors, and sets the city council agenda. The legislative function is retained by the city council which approves or rejects legislation (known as ordinances at the local level), approves the city budget, hires and fires the city manager, and selects one of their members to serve as presiding officer. The presiding officer is often granted the title of “mayor,” but this position is rotated on an annual basis with the other council members and possesses mostly ceremonial powers. The presiding officer retains a vote equal to the other council members. The criticism of the council-manager system is that it is undemocratic because the chief executive (i.e., the city manager) is not elected by the people. This could be a valid concern in instances when the manager assumes a policy leadership role, usurping the city council’s function. This is most likely when a part-time city council is inattentive or lacks objective information independent of the manager’s recommendations. However, please utilize the link listed below to view a short video advocating the council-manager form.

The Council-Manager Form of Local Government

Commission. This is the least common of the three systems. It was designed to avoid the unwieldy councils and divided responsibilities of the mayor-council form. Under this scenario, an elected board of commissioners oversees the operations of the city and supervises the departments and agencies. Usually consisting of five members, commissioners are often elected at large, with one serving as chairperson. The board formulates policy like a council but also assigns each commissioner the administrative responsibility for managing specific departments. The commissioners make policy and execute it. The commission form has been criticized for its lack of a single authority and reliance on consensus. Many also believe that commission boards are too small for a legislative body and too large for an executive.

Los Angeles City operates under the mayor-council form with 15 district-elected council members and a mayor separately chosen by the voters. However, Los Angeles County utilizes the commission arrangement to govern via its five-member, district-elected Board of Supervisors. Both the L.A. City Council and the L.A. Board of Supervisors operate under California’s “Brown Act,” which requires that local governments act and deliberate openly and provide public notice of meetings. Please review the summary of the Brown Act on page 121 in your California Government textbook.

Who Runs the City?

One of the most common political questions regarding city government revolves around the question of who is really in charge of policy decisions. Merely describing charter provisions and the different forms of city government may not always reveal which individuals or groups have the most impact on policies which affect the basic services provided to residents. As briefly mentioned on page 121 in your California Government textbook, those who contribute to election campaigns can be influential with city council members and mayors. And, as pointed out in the textbook, well-organized, even non-affluent, groups can be effectively involved in city politics. As you might imagine, the question of “who runs the city” has motivated research by political scientists. The answer, of course, will vary from city to city, as well as over time but some studies have revealed the following explanations:

Elitist theory. It was discovered that business leaders in some cities convey decisions to elected and appointed officials who in turn implement these ideas. This was true of one study conducted in Atlanta.

Modified elitist theory. Other research revealed that the “economic dominants” (i.e., business leaders) were little involved in community affairs and conveying policy ideas to elected leaders. Instead, “prescribed influentials” (i.e., those with formally defined political roles such as elected officials) and “attributed influentials” (i.e., those perceived to be influential) exercised power. Interestingly, this theory proved accurate in describing Atlanta when that city was restudied some years later, as a follow-up to determine if the elitist theory was still valid in describing that city’s policy making.

Polynucleated power structure. In this situation, many power centers operate rather than solely an elite or a few groups. A study of New York City found a system of separate and numerous islands of power. Party leaders, elected officials, bureaucrats, the electorate, and many nongovernmental groups shared power.

New convergence structure. In some cities it was found that the mayor operates with two principal groups which provide the initiative for community programs. These two groups are locally oriented interest organizations and professional city workers.

Of course, there is no one easy answer to “who runs the city?” However, in most mid to large size cities it is likely that elected city officials are increasingly exercising power, rather than constituting mere fronts for an invisible elite hovering in the background. And, corresponding to the “new convergence structure,” it is also believed that well-educated city employees are likely to expand their influence on policy as elected city leaders rely more and more on the professional expertise needed to address complex challenges.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Sample exam questions

Note: Sample questions are provided at the end of each lesson to help you prepare for the midterm and final exams. They are for your use and do not have to be answered and submitted to Connor Dawson.

1. Counties are created by

a. the state.

b. the federal government when a state is admitted to the union.

c. local governments utilizing their charter powers.

d. bills approved by Congress and the President.

2. A city is formed when a group of citizens come together and successfully petition the state to

a. abolish county government in favor of more local governments in an area.

b. grant a charter for their locality.

c. pass a state constitutional amendment creating a new city.

d. request Congress to grant recognition of the new municipality via a federal charter.

3. A charter which is custom designed, enacted by the legislature, and includes provisions specific for a new city is known as a __________ charter.

a. home rule

b. special act

c. general act

d. classified and optional

4. Which type of charter has been criticized as an unwarranted interference by the legislature in the purely local affairs of individual cities?

a. Home rule

b. Special act

c. General act

d. Classified and optional

5. Which charter came to be viewed as too rigid and not accommodating for local community differences?

a. Home rule

b. Special act

c. General act

d. Classified and optional

6. When combined, which charter systems provide the most flexibility without employing customization for each proposed new city?

a. Home rule and special act

b. Special act and optional

c. General act and classified

d. Classified and optional

7. Most city governments follow the federal and state example by utilizing the bicameral legislative structure in city councils.

a. True

b. False

8. The mayor-city council form of city government includes a judicial branch, modeled after the federal government structure.

a. True

b. False

9. Which form of city government is designed to incorporate the executive and legislative functions in one body?

a. Mayor-Council

b. Council-Manager

c. Commission

d. None of the above.

10. The corporate model of a chief operating officer hired and responsible to a board of directors is most closely related to which form of city government?

a. Mayor-Council

b. Council-Manager

c. Commission

d. All of the above follow the corporate model.

11. Cities moving in the direction of centralized budgeting, purchasing, and personnel controls while still wishing to retain independent boards and commissions fit into the __________ of mayor-council government.

a. weak mayor form

b. strong mayor form

c. hybrid form

d. commission form

12. The Council-Manager Form of Local Government video advocated that structure for cities. Which of the following advantages did the advocates feel was beneficial to city government?

a. The presence of an independently elected mayor ensures the council-manager system will be responsive to public concerns.

b. Although the council-manager form is more costly than the strong-mayor system, it is worth the expense to hire a professional, experienced city manager to oversee city operations.

c. By separating management of city operations from city politics, services provided to residents will be more effectively delivered and save taxpayer dollars.

d. All of the above were presented as advantages of the council-manager form.

13. California’s “Brown Act”

a. requires public agencies to act and deliberate openly.

b. is Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposal, now approved by voters, to establish a “rainy day” fund to be used when the state experiences a revenue shortfall.

c. allows city councils to consider most items in closed session, as long as votes are conducted publicly.

d. was enacted to limit city council and mayoral terms, in response to the decades-long incumbency of former Governor Pat Brown.

14. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors consists of

a. 5 members elected at large.

b. 5 members elected by district.

c. 9 members elected at large.

d. 9 members with 5 elected at large and 4 elected by district.

15. The Los Angeles City Council is comprised of

a. 5 members elected by district.

b. 9 members elected by district.

c. 15 members elected by district.

d. None of the above, as all are elected at large.

16. Research revealed that participants in city policy decisions have been dominated by both prescribed and attributed influentials. This explanation of city governance is known as the

a. elitist theory.

b. modified elitist theory.

c. polynucleated power structure

d. new convergence structure.

17. In some cities, the mayor operates principally with two groups to guide policy: locally oriented interest organizations and professional city workers. This explanation of city policy decision making is known as the

a. elitist theory.

b. modified elitist theory.

c. polynucleated power structure.

d. new convergence structure.