Strong mayor best option in some cities

Sound familiar? It's not Scranton. It's Spokane, Washington.

Last year, faced with some of the same complaints heard in Scranton, it did the opposite of what had been considered here. Spokane threw out a city-manager form of government and adopted a strong-mayor style.

Other cities have tossed out strong mayors for city managers. Often, the reasons sound the same -- to remove politics and make government more responsive and efficient. Locally, the strong-mayor forces have just gained the upper hand. On Wednesday, Scranton's Home Rule Charter Study Commission by a 6-5 vote reversed its October decision to put a city manager charter on the ballot next year.

Like the common cold, there is no real cure for a government infested with politics, many experts said. But both systems have their advantages and disadvantages, according to government experts and those who have struggled with the question.

Local city manager advocates believe the switch would put a qualified professional in charge, cutting down on political battles. Under the plan favored by pro-manager commission members, City Council would hire a manager with specific qualifications, perhaps a master's degree in public administration and several years' experience in city management.

In addition, Commission Chairwoman Nancy Kay Holmes said the plan would mandate a manager without political experience to help keep politics out of the mix.Chances of finding a Scranton resident to meet all of those qualifications would be "slim to none," she said. That's good, Mrs. Holmes said, because it would further cut the chances that Council would hire a political protg.

In a strong-mayor system, the top dog is elected from among candidates who may not have any qualifications for the daily management of a multi-million dollar enterprise, she noted.

Jubi Headley, spokesman for the U.S. Conference of Mayors, said the increased chance of having a professional in charge is one advantage of the city manager system. The conference does not advocate any one form of government.

Scranton Tomorrow, the civic group that campaigned for the city-manager system, believes it would have prevented the familiar gridlock between mayor and council. "Right now, if you watch our City Council meetings you will really see the level of frustration of our council members," said Andrea Mulrine, chairwoman of Scranton Tomorrow's Efficient Government and Taxes Task Force. "It is so palpable."

The strong-mayor system bears some of the blame for the city's financial woes, she said, although Mrs. Mulrine said the debate is not about Mayor James Connors. "He walked into a system that is broken," she said.

Of course, council members can fight among themselves as much as they might fight a mayor, said Mr. Headley. If council is badly split, it is hard to give a manager clear directions, he said. But he said council-manager advocates are right that the switch can drain some, but not all, of the bile of politics out of the business of government.

"That's baloney," said John Williams, president of the Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce. "You will never remove politics from government."

Political infighting among council members led Cincinnati to adopt a hybrid system that gives the mayor more power while retaining a city manager, he said. The new system isn't in place yet.

Spokane rejected city managers because they became entrenched and gained too much power on behalf of a small elite, said Steve Eugster, a lawyer who fought for the change and was then elected to City Council. "I think people were striving for leadership," he said.

Scranton commission member Terry Osborne said his experience as a city deputy fire chief and former union president has shown him the value of having the mayor be clearly in charge.

"I think it is very important to have the mayor be the guy you have to deal with, one point person," he said.

The people would have less influence with a manager, who is not elected and reports to council, Mr. Osborne claimed. "I like the idea that the top man is removable at the ballot box."

Mr. Headley has heard the same argument from people in several cities that have adopted a strong mayor in recent years.

"More often than not it comes from a desire to create a government that they have more input in and what greater input can one have than electing the CEO of one's city?" Mr. Headley said. "A lot of times that creates a better sense of ownership by the citizens."

But having one politician in charge has a down side, according to Martha Perego, manager of local government programs for the International City County Management Association, a group that advocates city manager systems and is assisting pro-manager forces in Scranton.

Under a strong mayor, special interests can have easier access to power and less scrutiny of their proposals, she said. "In one sense, they are not going through the collaborative process," she said.

But Mr. Headley stressed that the people in charge matter more than the form of government. "We have strong and effective leaders in both systems," he said.

Subscribe to The Times-Tribune