WeShare

Every month or two I receive correspondence addressed to “Mayor Wes Hare.”  Usually, it’s a solicitation from some distant company; but occasionally I get a letter from a citizen who has no idea about the distinction between a mayor and a city manager.  The confusion is understandable for people who have limited contact with local government.  It’s less forgivable when government officials either don’t know or pointedly ignore the differences.

The fundamental difference between a mayor and city manager is that mayors are elected and managers aren’t.  Winning an election entitles a mayor to privileges and responsibilities that a city manager should never aspire to, much less possess.  Mayors are not only free to engage in political activities, it’s important that they do so.  Mayors are elected because of their politics, even when they hold nonpartisan positions.  Mayors are, in short, living examples of local democracy at work.  Good mayors do their best to effectively represent their constituents by making decisions that produce the greatest good for the greatest number.  Representative government does not mean that a mayor will always do exactly what a majority of citizens might wish at a given moment, but rather what their constituents would do to advance the common good if they had the best information available.

City managers are appointed by mayors and city councils on the basis of the manager’s education and experience.  Elected officials rightly expect that a manager’s decisions and actions will be guided by professionalism, ethical principles, and the will of the city council.  Managers are not free to be Republican, Democratic, or Libertarian administrators; and those who subscribe to the International City-County Management Association Code of Ethics are specifically prohibited from any political activity beyond voting.  City managers represent bureaucracy or the implementation of the decisions made by democratically elected mayors and councils.  Managers who stray into the political arena lack the legitimacy endowed by an election, not to mention good survival instincts.

As a young city administrator, I worked for a mayor whom I greatly respected; and when he decided to run for the county commission, he asked if I would help out with his primary campaign.  My wife and I made a small financial contribution and handed out brochures in a neighboring city.  I was not a member of the International City-County Management Association (ICMA) at the time and had not read the organization’s Code of Ethics.  Our mayor lost the election, and it was fortunate that the eventual winner probably had no knowledge of my participation in the campaign.  The city I worked for could have paid a heavy price for my ignorance if the new commissioner held a grudge every time we needed something from the county.  More importantly, my political activity invalidated my claim to being an objective analyst of public policy.  I believe it is critically important that a politically neutral, objective analysis be available to decision makers as they consider public policy.  If the city manager’s objectivity is compromised by political activity, an important perspective may never get to the table.

The council-manager form of government works well when there is common understanding about the differing roles of elected officials and managers.  I have no aspirations to become a mayor, and I’m grateful that our mayor and council focus on policy rather than administration.