Municipal Management
| Date | 01 December 1949 |
| Published date | 01 December 1949 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1949.tb02699.x |
Municipal
In
this issue
Mr.
Louis Brownlow
reviews the present position of the City
Manager movement in the United
States. He shows that the movement
in which he was one
of
the pioneers
continues to make steady progress.
There are now
594
City Managers in the
United States, an increase of
237
since
1931.
Though
it
is still not the most
usual form of municipal management,
it
has
clearly long since ceased to be an
experiment; in the United States the
idea
is
now firmly estabhshed.
So
far, however, the idea has not
bulked large
among
American exports.
True there are sufficient
City
Managers
in
Canada
to give the movement an
international flavour and there are four
examples
in
Eire. But no British local
authority
has
adopted the method
though it would be well within their
powers to do
so
with perhaps one or two
adjustments. There have been cases in
which a Town Clerk,
or
in one or two
cases,
a Municipal Treasurer has so
enjoyed the confidence of his Council
as
to be
B
clear head and shoulders above
the other chief oEcers. But there are
two
very important differences between
the position of the City Manager and
that of the Town Clerk (or other chief
official in Britain) however much the
latter may enjoy the confidence of
his
COUIlCil.
First, the superior position of the
American
City
Manager is recognised
by his clear responsibility to the Council
both
for the appointment of all the
other officials and for the policy of all
the various departments. Second, whilst
the elected Council
are
responsible for
major decisions
of
policy, it is clearly
understood that the Manager is given a
free hand by the Council in carrying out
the policy.
British local government is in marked
contrast. The official at the head of
each department is usually responsible
to
a Committee of the Council and,
through that Comrmttee, to the Council.
He
is
appointed by the Council usually
on the advice of the appropriate Com-
Management
mittee.
And
it
is the use
of
the Com-
mittee system which enabIes the elected
representative to bring the democratic
element not merely into broad issues of
policy but also into the everyday hap-
penings in the Departments. Noce of
these features would be readily given up
or changed
unless
it could be, proved
that real gains would accrue in other
directions.
It
is
not just a question of
habit or custom. There are un-
doubted advantages
in
the present
system. The clear responsibility which
rests on the shoulders of each chief local
official for his Department and the close
and direct contact he enjoys with the
elected element-these are features
which would not be readily given up by
either the officials or the
Councillors
unless the interposition of
a
super
official could be shown to increase the
efficiency of all aspects of the authority’s
administration,
It
may be thought that there may be
some parallel between the City Manager
and the Permanent Secretary of one of
the central departments. But certainly
so
far as the major Local Authorities are
concerned the range of their functions
necessarily involves the formation of
several departments. Indeed, the ad-
ministrative problem with the largest
authorities is similar in character to that
of
the central government-to secure
proper co-ordination between depart-
ments, not
within
a
single department.
In the case of the central government,
this interdepartmental co-ordination is
brought about by various methods,
principally through the activities of the
Cabinet and of the Treasury.
If
this
is any pointer for local government
so
far as officials are concerned
it
points in
the direction of the strengthening of the
functions of the Municipal Treasurer
rather than the creation of a City Mana-
ger.
Any movement towards some form of
City
Manager system in this country
would immediately raise the question
o€
the position
of
the Town Clerk. At the
moment he is chid secretary and legal
To continue reading
Request your trial