Charting a New Course: The Search for Efficiency In Scranton Government

By most accounts, it failed.

The basis for the change was the city's Home Rule Charter, approved by voters in 1974 and instituted in January 1976.

The charter tried to move the city from an inefficient patronage system by vesting much of the day-to-day responsibility for running the government in a professional business administrator. The administrator would report to the mayor, who would set policy.

But no mayor since then has been willing to give a business administrator that latitude. The provision, along with many other charter mandates, was simply ignored. And with no enforcement teeth in the charter, there was little that could be done.

Scranton has been a distressed city since 1992. Of the more than a dozen distressed municipalities that have participated in the state recovery program, Scranton is the only one that failed to make financial progress and, some state officials believe, is actually in worse shape than when it started. The city continues to teeter on the brink of bankruptcy.

That was the backdrop in November 1999 when city voters overwhelmingly agreed to a review of Scranton's aging Home Rule Charter. This past Oct. 11, the resulting Home Rule Charter Study Commission voted 6-5 to change the city's form of government from strong mayor to council-manager.

But exactly how -- and whether -- the change will work, assuming residents agree to it in a referendum, remains to be seen.

Scranton Tomorrow's Efficient Government and Taxes Task Force began the charter movement as it struggled to find a way to turn the city around.

Andrea Mulrine, task force chairwoman, said the possible solution began to click when the task force consulted with various experts, including the Pennsylvania Economy League's Charles Watters and the state Department of Community and Economic Development's Fred Reddig.

Both men have worked extensively with the city during its failing recovery process.

"The idea was to find the root causes of the problems," Mrs. Mulrine said.

No matter what questions were asked -- everything from "Why does the mayor have all year to work on a budget and council has only four weeks?" to "Why doesn't the mayor have to attend council meetings?" -- it always came back to the charter, she said. The answer was either, "Because that's the way the charter was written," or, "Because that issue is not addressed in the charter."

"We felt (the charter) needed to be tightened, if nothing else," she said.

RECIPE FOR STALMATE

She also believes the current structure, with its distinct legislative-executive split between council and mayor, is a recipe for governmental stalemate.

"There is constant bickering between mayor and council," Mrs. Mulrine said. "We don't ever get consensus because the two bodies are always at odds."

Mr. Reddig said a second look at the charter is necessary if only to assess what areas did or did not work, and to restructure the government based on those determinations. That is the intent behind the state's 1972 Home Rule legislation.

"A community develops a structure of government it feels best fits its needs," Mr. Reddig said. "It's a self-examination process."

Nancy Kay Holmes, chairwoman of the current Home Rule Charter Study Commission, knows the system firsthand. She served one term on City Council in the mid-1990s.

"The primary fact was that frequently you had the administration and council pulling in different directions," she said, noting gridlock frequently hamstrings decisions. "You had the various branches each working separately. They did not deal as well with each other."

She believes the situation would have been different had the current charter been followed.

"I don't think we would be in the financial condition we're in now if a strong, qualified business administrator was allowed to do his job," Mrs. Holmes said.

She noted other problems, such as vacancies on standing commissions and boards that go unfilled and a mandated but non-existent Ethics Commission. Meanwhile, she said, there are no provisions in the charter for penalties if it is not followed.

William Hansell, executive director of the International City/County Management Association and a strong proponent of the council-manager form of government, served as a consultant to the original Scranton charter commission in the 1970s.

"The world is a very different place," he said. "Scranton is a very different place."

DEPTHS OF DISTRESS

He said the city is now less industrial and more dependent on a university-based economy. The virtually bankrupt city has been unable to pull itself out of financial distress, Mr. Hansell said, raising questions about how it can attract economic development.

"You've got to do something to turn it dramatically around," he said. "The city is in deep distress and the city has been unable to work its way out of it with the current structure."

The original charter commission looked at the council-manager form of government -- now the dominant structure across the country -- and liked it, he said. But commission members thought it would be too radical a change. Members wanted a structure that would be more familiar to city residents.

The solution, Mr. Hansell said, was to graft some of the features of a council-manager style of government onto the strong-mayor form through the introduction of a professional business manager.

"The problem is the position has not been filled by a professional business manager," he said. "It has been filled by a professional politician. It simply hasn't worked."

Mr. Hansell sees politics as the biggest threat to a successful switch from strong-mayor to a council-manager form of government. A professional city manager does not make decisions based on the political twins of patronage and favoritism, he said. The basis, instead, is merit.

"They will deal with a contractor only if he gives the best deal for the money," Mr. Hansell said of a professional manager. "That is a major cultural shift. Politics was the only contact sport in Scranton 25 years ago. It's still a heavily political arena."

Council-manager proponents like Mrs. Mulrine and Mrs. Holmes believe the change would eliminate gridlock by bringing all policymakers to the same table. It would also, they maintain, improve the efficiency of day-to-day operations by putting a professional in charge.

MAYOR UNCONVINCED

Mayor Jim Connors is not convinced.

He supported formation of the Home Rule Charter Study Commission -- he said it is always good to review how things are done -- but he believes a big city needs a big city government. For him, that means a strong mayor.

"In a big city, you need to make decisions quickly," he said. "You need a chief executive who is close to the people and who responds to the people."

Mr. Connors said he spoke at a recent conference of mayors with Cincinnati officials who attempted to switch to a council-manager form. The mayor said he was told it failed.

"The mayor becomes a bureaucrat with no real connection to the people," he said.

He also challenged those who believe gridlock has caused many of Scranton's problems.

"This is America," Mr. Connors said. "People think you can totally eliminate conflict and debate. They want us to go to government that's not democratic."

But while the mayor feels Scranton's stance as the state's fifth most populous city demands a local government similar to the state and federal system, he also maintains the current strong-mayor form is not powerful enough. The mayor, he complained, cannot do anything without council concurring.

Mr. Connors acknowledged the same problems plague the state and federal governments, and could offer no suggestions for strengthening the mayor's position without creating a virtual dictatorship.

He said the ultimate decision is up to Scranton voters.

"I'll live with whatever the people say," he said.

MONDAY: Another Northeastern Pennsylvania city considering changing its form of government is highlighted.

Subscribe to The Times-Tribune