Chapter7KimberlyL.NelsonCarlW.Stenberg.docx

Chapter7
ENHANCING COUNCIL–MANAGER EFFECTIVENESS

The most basic issue regarding roles and responsibilities for councilmembers is whether—or maybe when—they will act in their role as representatives of constituencies—customer service representatives—in contrast to acting as “trustees” of the community.

—John Nalbandian (2016, p. 22)

The ideological and political trends discussed in the previous chapter have sometimes produced dysfunctional effects on governing boards. To the extent that elected officials are interested primarily in promoting particular causes or special constituencies, micromanaging administration, and criticizing their colleagues and the staff, prospects for responsible decision making in the public interest are diminished. Tensions on the governing body are exacerbated in such cases by two gaps: the knowledge and experience that separates a full-time professional staff from a body of part-time elected officials and the governing body’s preoccupation with political acceptability and the staff’s focus on administrative sustainability, identified by John Nalbandian (Nalbandian & Nalbandian, 2002).
The typical lack of government expertise on the part of newer members is compounded by frequent turnover on some councils and boards. In many communities, governing bodies range from five to seven members, so the majority can readily change. Elected officials are amateurs, in the very best sense of the term, who function as civic-minded citizen legislators. Although they may be interested in seeking reelection, the vast majority are not professional, full-time politicians. Most local elected officials do not derive the bulk of their income from serving on governing bodies. They see themselves individually and collectively as local government leaders. Some consider themselves as trustees, delegates, and activists responsible for representing citizens and making public policy to improve their community. However, as indicated in the quote at the beginning of this chapter, they may envision their chief role as customer service representatives. And managers often consider themselves (and are viewed as) community leaders as well as technical experts and policy initiators.
In many communities, these gaps are growing and creating the potential for misunderstanding and conflict. While they are rooted in the differing expectations, styles, and cultures of elected officials and professional managers, finding more common ground would improve the conduct of local government business. What are the attributes of a high-performing decision-making body? How can these gaps be closed, the board or council given the tools it needs to become effective, and a partnership developed with the professional staff? These questions are addressed in this chapter in the context of the council–manager plan, although the key points are also applicable to localities operating under the mayor–council form.
HIGH-PERFORMING HABITS
In view of these gaps, councils or boards can easily get off the track to high performance. Key indicators that this is happening include lack of clarity over who does what in terms of the roles of the governing board and the staff on the four dimensions of governmental process identified by James Svara (1985)—mission, policy, administration, and management—in the previous chapter. With respect to elected officials, disagreement about who is in charge, especially if the presiding officer’s authority is limited or if his or her facilitative leadership skills are weak, and clashes among the members that get personal undermine effectiveness. Other indicators of relationship problems include members focusing on their individual campaign positions instead of community interests, disrespecting staff in public, not doing their homework, and feeling overwhelmed by staff reports and data. Micromanagement of staff and operations by elected officials and bypassing the manager to deal directly with staff can create tensions throughout the organization. Another source of friction is member confusion over whether they are primarily trustees of their community or customer service representatives and advocates for their constituencies, or both. With respect to the last factor, Nalbandian (2016) observes, “The interesting challenge is that council members are charged with fulfilling both roles and, unfortunately, there is no common guidance as to when a councilmember should act in one role as opposed to the other” (p. 22).
The International City/County Management Association’s (ICMA’s) 2012 State of the Profession survey asked city and county managers to rate the effectiveness of their council as a decision-making body. Twenty-six percent responded that their council was highly effective, 28% said it was moderately effective, and 38% stated that it was not effective (Nelson & Svara, 2014, p. 14). Clearly, while the majority of the ratings were positive, there is room for improvement.
Building governing body effectiveness is especially difficult, given the mayor’s or chair’s limited authority as presiding officer. Regardless of whether members are elected at-large or from a district, they do not owe their electoral success to their governing body colleagues. And they have a mandate from voters to pursue the agenda on which they campaigned. Having been elected, they may consider themselves experts in the art and practice of local government or, at least, in campaigning for office. For the most part, the members are equals, and as a result, no one is really in charge (especially if the presiding officer lacks strong interpersonal and facilitative skills), so power is widely shared.
At least nine habits of a high-performing governing body have been identified: (1) thinking and acting strategically and with a vision for the community’s future; (2) respecting the shared constituency with citizens and in their relations with other governments and organizations; (3) demonstrating teamwork; (4) mastering small-group decision making, including adhering to rules of procedure, time allocations, and meeting agendas; (5) honoring the council–staff partnership; (6) using governing body time and effort appropriately in four key areas—goal-setting retreats, study sessions, regular public hearings and meetings, and community relations; (7) having clear rules and procedures for board or council meetings; (8) obtaining feedback and conducting regular assessments of policy and implementation performance; and (9) practicing continuous personal learning and leadership development of individual elected officials (Neu, 2003, p. 10).
THE MANAGER’S FACILITATING ROLE
Although a municipal or county manager has no formal authority over the governing body, there are a number of basic steps he or she can take to help improve its deliberations. ICMA’s State of the Profession Survey found that “when top administrators always work to promote interaction among council members, 7 of 10 governing boards are highly effective at decision making, compared to 4 in 10 when interaction is never or only occasionally supported” (Nelson & Svara, 2014, p. 3). Many of these best practices could also apply to a mayor in the mayor–council form without a CAO.
A useful beginning point is for the manager to hold on boarding orientations for new members of the governing body, perhaps building on candidate briefing sessions during the election campaign. At the same time, the presiding officer could work with members to improve the conduct of the governing body’s business and encourage adoption and adherence to protocols or rules of procedure. These could include encouraging colleagues to do their homework; asking pertinent questions; staying within time limits during deliberations; not making criticism or disagreement personal; and not embarrassing the staff with public comments that would be better made in private.
The manager is responsible for drafting the meeting agenda. To help elected officials prepare for meetings, the agenda should be distributed well in advance of meetings with background documentation attached. When appropriate, policy alternatives should be accompanied by cost estimates. The form of distribution—electronic or paper—is determined by the governing body.
Choices about how often to schedule meetings of elected officials and what types of meetings are most appropriate are usually in the hands of the mayor or CAO. If a topic is more technical or requires more in-depth discussion, a work session may be more appropriate than a normal board meeting. Managers need to be sensitive to the time commitment that is being asked of elected officials and be sure that the meeting time is being used judiciously.
The manager should be cautious about overwhelming elected officials with highly detailed, lengthy technical reports. Ideally, an annual policy calendar will be developed to identify and address long-range issues.
The presiding officer also should let the manager know if elected officials want other professional staff members to be present and contribute to the meeting and whether the agenda and related materials satisfy the governing body’s expectations in terms of timeliness, priority, and quantity and quality of the information. In these respects, both the manager and the presiding officer can play the important role of informal coach to the governing body and smooth the members’ transition from campaigning to governing as well as to help them develop high-performance habits.
MUTUAL EXPECTATIONS
Specific expectations regarding effectiveness and related practices among the governing body, the mayor or chair serving as presiding officer, and the manager vary greatly from state to state and community to community, depending on social and political norms, traditions, and laws. They can also vary with changes in the personalities involved as elected officials turn over and managers move on. However, research and experience have shown that in some critical aspects of these partnerships, there are fairly consistent expectations across jurisdictions and over time. For the most part, the following eight expectations may be regarded as basic and necessary to defining roles and maintaining healthy relationships among the elected members of the governing body, the presiding officer, and the manager and professional staff. Fulfilling them is critical to becoming a high-performing organization. These expectations have been developed and are used by the University of North Carolina School of Government Faculty in retreat facilitations with governing bodies and management teams.1

Expectation 1: The Manager Is an Organization Capacity Builder
From the inception of the council–manager form, governing bodies have expected their professional managers to see to it that local operations run smoothly, services are provided efficiently and effectively, and prudent fiscal practices are followed. The focus here is on the technical expertise of the manager and on his or her ability to adapt modern management techniques into the organization.
In to meet governing body and citizen expectations, the manager must build an organization that has both capacity and competence. This entails implementing and updating business practices and processes for personnel administration, finance, purchasing, payroll, contracting, and other basic local systems. More recently, it involves adept use of management techniques in his or her toolbox, such as strategic planning, performance measurement, benchmarking, and program evaluation, to ensure continuous improvement of operations and to base advice, recommendations, and decisions on evidence. Technologies such as websites and social media are being used to increase public outreach and access and to reduce costs. And increasingly, managers seek to build organizations that promote innovation.
A critical component of this organization capacity building is professional staff. Given the substantial number of employees who will be eligible for retirement in the next decade, the manager must attract and retain talented and motivated personnel in for the government to work well. Workforce and succession planning and investments in training and professional development are essential. Increasingly, as local government workforces become more diverse and multigenerational, strategies will be needed to recruit and respond to the changing faces of the administrative staff, such as bilingual education, job rotation, job sharing, and flexible work hours. Also important are redesigning position vacancy announcements and revamping human relations management processes. A 2016 report published by the Alliance for Innovation observed that “transforming local government human resources policies and practices is at the heart of building the workforce of tomorrow” (2016, p. 2).
The stakes are high. When the processes and personnel perform as expected, local operations run smoothly and routinely. Their workings might be almost invisible to citizens and elected officials. If there is a breakdown in organizational capacity, however, both managers and elected officials can be placed under a harsh public spotlight and confidence in local government quickly diminishes.
Expectation 2: The Manager Is a Valued, Unbiased Advisor to the Governing Body
While the ICMA Code of Ethics and some state statutes require the manager to give policy advice to the governing body and faithfully carry out its policy decisions, neither deals specifically with some subtle but important aspects of the advice-giving and implementation processes. Illinois Compiled Statutes, for example, require the manager “to attend all meetings of the council or board of trustees with the right to take part in the discussions, but with no right to vote,” and “to recommend to the council or board of trustees for adoption such measures as he may deem necessary or expedient (Illinois General Assembly, n.d., 65 ILCS 5/5-3-7). Alternatively, through the ICMA Code of Ethics, managers are directed to submit policy proposals and provide facts and advice to help the governing body make policy decisions and set goals.

In some cases, veteran governing body members can play important roles in building relationships among the members or between the elected officials and the manager or chief administrative officer (CAO). Veterans can also be helpful with the onboarding of new members, especially with respect to how the group conducts itself and interpersonal relationships. But the team-building challenge can be daunting, given the diffusion of power on local governing boards.
Governing bodies expect the manager to offer balanced and impartial advice. This involves presenting alternatives and providing all relevant information that is reasonably available on the different options, assessing the advantages and disadvantages of each option, explaining the professional reasoning and analysis that led him or her to a recommendation, and basing that reasoning on established professional, technical, ethical, or legal principles and not on personal beliefs, unless the governing body specifically solicits them. Even the appearance or the suspicion that the manager is being selective in the information provided, personally biased in the judgment rendered, or unduly influencing of the governing body’s decision by the way material is presented can severely damage the manager’s credibility, erode trust, undermine effectiveness, and threaten longevity. This does not mean that the manager should act with no consideration for political reality. Some policy proposals will not be politically acceptable, regardless of the quality of the option in the manager’s opinion or recommendation.
Early in the development of the profession, Leonard D. White called attention to one of the hazards found in the “adventuresome spirit” of many managers, particularly those new to the profession:
This course (community or civic leadership) is one which, if persisted in, will sound the death knell of the manager plan as now conceived, for a manager who undertakes civic leadership stakes his position on the acceptance of his program by the voters. If his program is rejected . . . he sacrifices his position as manager. Moreover by entering the arena of public opinion and identifying himself with a policy or program, he allies himself with one group of citizens and against another and incurs ill will which is bound to be transferred to the purely administrative phases of his work. (White, 1927, p. 300)
Despite White’s admonitions, most managers will express support and sometimes advocate for a course of action they believe in, even though it might be unpopular with the public or the governing body and might not have very good prospects of being accepted. Elected officials or citizens who are upset or disagree over the facts, options, or advice that are presented by the manager might attack the validity of the manager’s advice or challenge his or her competence, motives, judgment, or character. One of the most difficult tests for a manager acting as policy advisor is to remain non defensive and under control during heated debates over the information and the recommendations that he or she has brought to the governing body.
Managers must develop a sense of when to lead and when to follow, when to advocate and when to remain passive. Even as they look to the manager for leadership, elected officials might push back when their “employee” makes a strong case that some members do not want to hear. But, as a former city manager points out from his 29 years of experience, strong managers add value:
Politicians clearly think, feel, and believe that granting authority to management diminishes, or would diminish, their own. In fact the opposite is true. Strong and capable politicians need strong and capable managers if they want long-term achievement. Strong managers would make strong politicians look good, not weak. Strong managers have no desire to intrude into the political arena; they are quite happy to work behind the scenes. They pose no challenge whatsoever to elected officials. (White, 1927, pp. 85–86)
Once the governing body has made a decision, the manager must get behind it fully and ensure that the staff does the same. Many state statutes and local charters require the manager to see that all actions of the council are faithfully executed, and the ICMA Code of Ethics requires him or her to uphold and implement all policies adopted by elected officials. This sometimes requires the manager to implement what he or she thinks is a bad idea. If the manager believes that the directive the governing body has given is illegal or unethical and if he or she cannot convince the governing body to change its action, resignation may be an option to consider. Two veteran former managers observed:
One of the toughest challenges for professional staff is to be fully accepting of the right in a democratic system for the governing board to make the final decision when staff think, from their professional perspectives, it is the “wrong” decision. Governing boards have the right to make decisions within their authority, even if managers and staff don’t agree with them. (Duggan & Conduff, 2016, p. 82)
Sometimes the manager will be put in the awkward position of arguing strenuously for a course of action that the governing body subsequently rejects and then having the media ask what he or she thinks of the decision. Unless discussion and debate have changed the manager’s mind, to agree completely with the governing body will make the manager look weak, even though he or she is their employee. On the other hand, to criticize the governing body for its decision will violate the ICMA Code of Ethics and invite censure. Most professional managers who find themselves in this situation will acknowledge the differences in judgment that were exhibited in the deliberations and try to explain the reasoning that brought the governing body to the decision it made. In other words, they will help elected officials explain their decision to the public to promote understanding of the governing body’s point of view. Carrying out this important responsibility often takes great emotional intelligence, diplomatic, and communications skills.
It is also important to recognize that elected officials and professional staff interpret situations differently. Staff members are expected to produce plans and reports, analyze data, and provide other information relevant to the policy issue under consideration by the governing body. Elected officials are often moved in a direction different from that suggested by data and analysis by anecdotes and powerful stories. As Nalbandian’s (2016) table in the previous chapter shows, staff focus on “What do you know?” while elected officials focus on “What do you hear?” Both approaches are key to making good decisions.
Expectation 3: The Governing Body and the Manager Jointly Strive for Good Service to Citizens
Service to all citizens is the litmus test of local operations. Regardless of what the governing body accomplishes or the capacity, competence, and commitment of the administration, if the municipality or county does not satisfactorily deliver basic services, citizens will be dissatisfied with the elected officials and the governing body will be dissatisfied with the manager and the staff. Therefore, ensuring that local employees provide the very best service possible to the community is one of the key responsibilities of a manager.
Careful planning, budgeting, and management are helpful, but the manager cannot supervise all day-to-day execution. Thus, he or she has to create a culture of responsiveness and performance within the organization, both by providing routine service to citizens and by handling special requests and complaints. A key aspect of creating this culture is equipping staff to provide high quality, customer-oriented service. To do this, a manager or assistant manager should not micromanage. Line employees and staff need to be delegated the responsibility and authority to make decisions and take action. Employees also must be provided with the training, technology, and equipment necessary to efficiently and effectively carry out their responsibilities.
To promote the development of new and innovative ways to provide services, staff should be encouraged by managers to take initiative and risks, which also means supporting staff when they take a risk in good faith and fail. Failure should be used as a learning opportunity rather than a call for discipline or punishment. If managers encourage employees to take risks, they should be prepared to accept responsibility with the governing body when things go wrong.
Expectation 4: Elected Officials’ Relationships with Employees Are Carefully Managed
Citizens often ask their elected officials for help in getting their problems or needs addressed, and governing body members may identify a problem requiring immediate attention. Observing a chain of command in these situations is essential. Problems can arise when elected officials intervene directly in service operations. These include confusing employees with conflicting directives or priorities from supervisors and elected officials, weakening accountability for results, disrupting workflow, wasting staff time and resources, and short-circuiting coordinated plans developed by the supervisor responsible for day-to-day operations. This does not mean that elected officials should not have regular or even periodic contact with city or county employees to gain information or report problems.
Statutes and charter language defining the responsibilities of the manager in council–manager form commonly state that the municipal manager shall direct and supervise the administration of all departments, offices, and agencies of the city, subject to the general direction and control of the council, except as otherwise provided by law. This language reflects the long-standing prohibition in the Model City Charter (National Civic League, 2014) on interference with administration, which provides that council members should deal with employees through the manager. To make sure that the noninterference tenet is honored, some managers have insisted that there be no contact between employees and council members without their permission. However, as a practical matter, this can prove frustrating for everyone involved: Employees may feel as if they are being treated as second-class citizens, the manager might find that he or she has to devote too much time to managing communications traffic, and council members could come to regard the “contact only with permission” rule as unduly restrictive of their ability to keep track of the pulse of government, express constituent concerns, alert staff to problems, or get basic information. Most managers have an understanding that prevents the council or board from issuing directives to employees but allows members to freely seek information. Managers also expect that employees will keep them informed of contacts with elected officials.
Research conducted in 2005 found that the charters of nine of the 28 largest municipalities in North Carolina contained “work through the manager” language, while the remaining charters were silent on the matter of council–staff relations. In the latter municipalities, there was either an informal unwritten policy or no policy at all. The majority of managers interviewed in 2005 agreed that the norm applicable to their city could be best described as “direct communication between council members/mayor and city employees is neither strongly discouraged nor prohibited, but city employees are advised to inform a supervisor when contacted by council members/mayor.” They also stated that violations of the council member/staff contact policy or norm seldom occurred. More than three fourths of the managers indicated that their councils were respectful of the manager’s role as chief executive officer and that their city’s policy on council member/staff contact was about right. Reflecting the changing times, one manager stated, “Twenty-five years ago managers wanted everything to go through the manager’s office, and that’s just not practical today” (Wiseman, 2005, p. 5).
A common arrangement designed to protect planned workflow and promote regular interaction is to encourage direct contact between elected officials and employees for routine inquiries or requests that do not affect administrative workloads and to route more significant requests through the manager. This lets elected officials get the information they need quickly and accurately from the persons who are closest to the action and most informed about details. This arrangement also provides the opportunity for informal communication between elected officials and employees, helping each party become more familiar, comfortable, and trusting of the other over time. Requests from an elected official that will involve significant and unplanned expenditures of time or money or that will disrupt work schedules are taken up with the manager.
Any elected official concerns regarding personnel issues should be discussed with the manager directly. For example, if a council member receives complaints from staff who believe they are being unfairly treated by their department supervisor, the elected official should bring that complaint directly to the manager’s attention for investigation and appropriate action. If the elected official becomes involved and a lawsuit is filed subsequently, he or she could be pulled into the suit.
Depending on the nature of an elected official’s request, the manager can decide whether it should take precedence over existing commitments, whether something could be done that would meet the official’s needs but not be disruptive, or whether nothing should be done at all, given other priorities or legal concerns. The request of a single elected official may be of interest to the entire governing body, in which case, the manager should consider whether a written report should be prepared for all of the elected officials.
Expectation 5: The Governing Body Acts as a Body and Is Dealt with as a Body
By law, the governing body takes official action as a body, yet it is made up of individual politicians with various constituencies, personal interests, public values, political philosophies, agendas, and personalities. “Elected officials are sole practitioners. They do not join teams, partnerships, firms, or companies. There are no organizational support systems they can turn to. Politicians succeed or fail one at a time” (Wilson, 2013, p. 17). Despite the individual nature of the politician’s world, when serving on a local government board or council, individual members have no autonomous authority?

Chairman Phil Mendelson listens during a meeting of the Washington, D.C., City Council.
Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post via Getty Images
This situation can sometimes make dealing with the governing body a delicate proposition. Without benefit of consensus or at least formal support of a majority of the council or board, individual elected officials may seek to make their views known and impose their own personal agendas on the administration. Most managers will welcome, discuss, and frequently respond at any time to suggestions from individual members, as long as they do not conflict with the will of the governing body as a whole. However, if a request sets new directions or requires allocation of funds or staff time not anticipated by the governing body, the manager will usually ask the member making the proposal to put it to the entire body for consideration.
Contemporary local elected officials often run for office due to a desire to resolve a single issue. The issue may be as simple as a concern that potholes are not being filled quickly enough. But the single-issue-candidate-turned-elected-official is unlikely to take an interest in other policy areas until his or her issue is resolved. These officials may focus their attention on the department that aligns with their issue and make special requests of staff.
It is critical for the manager to treat all members alike. Unless he or she is scrupulous in avoiding even the appearance of favoritism, the manager can seriously undermine his or her effectiveness by alienating members who feel slighted or barred from some inner circle, real or perceived. Even in the case of routine requests for information, most managers will keep all members informed of transactions with individuals by sending copies of written responses or summaries of opinions rendered or actions agreed to in conversations.
One area in which managers must be especially ardent is keeping members up to date on day-to-day events. Elected officials do not like surprises. It is embarrassing for an official to be asked about some local newsworthy item and have to admit that he or she does not know much about it. Governing bodies expect their managers to be sensitive, alert, and responsive to their needs for current information and to be barometers of changing community sentiments and emerging issues. This expectation includes the manager making occasional extraordinary efforts necessary to ensure that every member has the same level of information and understanding. A common practice is a weekly e-mail from the manager to all governing body members. Social media is increasingly being used by managers to provide information to and get reactions from elected officials.
Expectation 6: The Manager and Members of the Governing Body Give One Another a Chance to Prove Themselves
One of the implicit foundations of the council–manager form of government is that a professional manager who is dedicated to serving whatever governing body is elected by the people will ensure smooth transitions and institutional stability and memory and will make substantive and stylistic changes as different individuals transition on and off the governing body. New members may find it hard to trust the loyalty of the manager and to have confidence in him or her to help bring about the changes they campaigned on and want to be made. Even in communities where the manager routinely makes information available to all candidates about local operations and finances to help inform discussion and debate during the election campaign, this behavior could be viewed as defense of the status quo. In short, members sometimes view the manager as inextricably tied to the old way of doing things and an impediment to progress and new ideas.
After an election, the manager may find himself or herself working for one or more board or council members who, as candidates, criticized the way in which the community was governed and managed. During their campaigns, some of these members may have called for the manager’s dismissal and they might try to convince a majority of their new colleagues that this step needs to be taken. Few elected officials would dispute that even if they had prior municipal or county service on volunteer boards or commissions, the view of government from the inside is very different than the view from the outside.
Candidates, upon taking office, usually learn that the simplicity of campaign rhetoric seldom stands up to the complexity of governing, leading, or managing. Realizing this, experienced managers will withhold judgment on members whose campaigning seems threatening and will set about to prove that they can serve the new governing body as well as they served the previous one. Managers should consider holding a governing body retreat after new members are elected. In addition to educating new officials about current policies, practices, and finances, the retreat can be an important opportunity to discuss appropriate roles for elected officials, the manager, and staff. Most managers anticipate that, given a chance, they will eventually earn the trust and confidence of new members as those members learn the realities of governing, gain skill as legislators, and observe the manager’s performance.
Expectation 7: The Manager and the Governing Body Give and Seek Feedback
The nature of the job of both elected officials and managers can make the persons holding them feel very isolated. One of the main ingredients for curing these feelings and for building and maintaining a relationship of trust and confidence is open communication and candid feedback. While managers must provide all governing body members with accurate, relevant, and timely information, the members must take initiative to ask questions and make their interests, positions, and feelings known to the manager. When an elected official openly directs constructive criticism toward the manager and gets issues out on the table, the manager can ask questions, provide information the member might not have, and respond to his or her concerns.
High-quality feedback can be provided to the manager through the annual evaluation process. As will be discussed in greater detail in the next section, annual evaluations can be very helpful for both managers and elected officials. They provide the manager with constructive criticism about areas for improvement and give the elected officials an opportunity to raise concerns in a professional manner.
Such feedback gives members the opportunity to clarify their expectations of the manager by means of concrete examples as they arise, and it gives the manager more certainty about what needs to be done to satisfy the elected officials and how well he or she is succeeding. Many elected officials appreciate the same sort of candor from the manager when they are behaving in a way that impedes effective management and frustrates the staff.
Expectation 8: The Manager and Governing Body Work Together to Promote Civility and Transparency
The dynamics of contemporary local government presented previously underscore why civility and transparency have increasingly become important dimensions of the relationship between elected officials and managers. A key concern is that the political and philosophical polarization that has characterized Congress for several years (and, recently, the deliberations of several state legislatures) is beginning to filter down to city councils and county boards. Of the respondents to ICMA’s 2012 State of the Profession Survey, 33% reported that political discourse in their community in the past year had been “somewhat polarized and strident, occasionally rude,” 6% indicated it had been “very polarized and strident, often rude,” and 52% stated that discourse had been “generally polite and tolerant of different opinions” (Nelson & Svara, 2014, p. 13). If polarization spreads, citizen trust and confidence in their local governments will likely further erode. This decline could be reflected in low turnout at the polls for general and special elections, lack of public support for bond issues, negative comments in the media and blogger world about the competence of local officials and the appropriateness of their actions, unwillingness of citizens to serve on boards and commissions or to volunteer for community service, and reluctance of millennials to pursue local government careers.
Becoming a more high-performing council or board can pay important dividends beyond just the efficient and effective conduct of the public’s business. Many governing bodies routinely televise their hearings and deliberations, and increasingly, bloggers use social media to comment on public meetings. The image of governing body members behaving civilly, asking thoughtful questions of one another and the professional staff, listening carefully to the views expressed by citizens, treating all who are present with courtesy and respect, and making decisions after assessing options and alternatives presented by the manager goes a long way toward building citizen confidence in local government and conveying a sense of genuine partnership between the governing body and administration in the governance process.
Similar to other high-performing qualities, there is no set formula for establishing and maintaining civility. Soon after an election and before the governing body begins complex and sometimes contentious budget deliberations, it will be important for the members to revisit their protocols and rules of procedure for their deliberations to determine how well these have worked and what changes need to be made in to promote greater civility in their dealings with one another and with the manager and staff. These conversations could be part of the agenda for a retreat or work session of the council or board.
Turning to transparency, technology has opened up the world of local government for all to see. Advances in computer and communications technology have made local government operations more transparent and accessible. Although the digital divide still exists in some places, most local governments have websites that provide wide-ranging information, such as about community events or activities, council agendas, elected official and staff contacts, financial conditions, strategic plans, and departmental performance indicators. These websites enable citizens to pay bills, register for activities, ask questions, and provide commentary from their home or office without having to make the journey to city hall or county courthouse. Governing body members and staff have also benefitted from technology. Instead of thick paper agendas, many jurisdictions provide laptops to elected officials to facilitate their review of agenda materials and allow them to check other sources of information and insight during council or board deliberations. Council members routinely communicate with staff, constituents, and one another via e-mail or social media sites, such as Facebook or LinkedIn. Also, the manager’s weekly e-mail to all governing body members summarizing key actions and upcoming matters has become an important tool for promoting communications and avoiding surprises.
The fact that most of the above technology that we take for granted today did not exist or was not widely used until the early 2000s means the road ahead could be exciting. At the same time, closing the digital divide will remain a priority for many jurisdictions. While what lies ahead in the next wave of technological innovation is not fully clear, it is unquestionable that citizens will expect local governments to use these tools to become more transparent and to promote citizen engagement.
RECOGNIZING AND DEALING WITH PROBLEMS IN THE GOVERNING BODY
The relationship between a governing body and a manager can greatly enhance or impede the processes of governing, leading, and managing, so it is important that the parties devote time to properly establishing and maintaining it. The eight preceding expectations are good points of departure. In addition, ICMA has published several books and reports offering advice and showcasing best practices for managers to use to strengthen their relationships with elected officials (Duggan & Conduff, 2016). But how can a manager know when problems noted in the opening of this chapter arise in the relationship with the governing board in time to take corrective action before dismissal?
As soon as possible, the elected officials and manager should decide what they expect of one another beyond the general tenets of statutory and professional responsibilities. No matter how much previous experience a new manager has had or how many managers have served a particular community, the relationship between a council or board and a manager is certain to be different in some ways from any other relationship previously experienced by either party. Problems will arise if there is uncertainty and disagreement concerning priorities, process, and performance. Each governing body and its manager must work out how they are willing to identify and deal with problems in their relationship.
Shortly after a new manager is hired, or if a significant turnover in governing body membership occurs or if a new presiding officer is elected, it will be essential to discuss their specific mutual expectations and what is needed from the others to effectively carry out major responsibilities. The presiding officer’s and governing body’s expectations of the manager inform their ability to both formally evaluate the manager and give him or her informal feedback about specific behaviors and general performance.
Once the governing body and manager have reached agreement on performance expectations in the context of the vision, goals, and objectives for the community, they should agree on the purpose, procedure, and timing of the manager’s evaluation. Evaluating the city or county manager is a task that governing bodies often find difficult and uncomfortable. Sometimes a manager’s evaluation is done in the context of decisions on an annual salary increase and the feedback is general or even perfunctory. In other cases, the presiding officer, outside of the yearly salary review, simply gives the manager feedback on how he or she is doing on behalf of the governing body. In still other communities, the fact that the manager continues to hold his or her job is a clear indication that performance is satisfactory to the majority of the governing body and amounts to a positive evaluation. Why, then, should a governing body take valuable time to more formally evaluate the manager, especially if things are going okay (Upshaw, 2014)?
Evaluations are important tools for giving the manager feedback on strong and weak points that can be useful in strengthening his or her competencies and approaches. This regular dialogue can go a long way in avoiding surprises and in building trust between the manager and governing body. The ICMA model employment agreement establishes the following minimum requirements for both the manager and the governing body: (1) a written evaluation, (2) a meeting to discuss the evaluation, (3) a written summary, and (4) delivery of the final written evaluation to the manager within thirty days of the evaluation meeting (ICMA, 2003).
There are a variety of evaluation approaches—from one-on-one reviews with the mayor or board chair to a complete 360-degree assessment of the manager by the governing body, professional staff, and community stakeholders. In accordance with the ICMA model employment agreement, elected officials are asked to complete a written form prior to the evaluation session with the manager, rating the manager on how well he or she exercises general organization management responsibilities; works with the governing body; carries out goals and objectives set by the council or board; develops and executes the budget; provides leadership; relates to the community; deals with the media and external audiences; communicates, delegates, and supervises; and performs in other key areas. Usually the manager is also rated on personal characteristics, such as objectivity, integrity, productivity, judgment, initiative and risk taking, ethics and morals, imagination, drive, self-assurance, stress management, and positive image. The manager normally does a self-assessment, which is shared with governing body members. These materials become the basis for a two-way conversation about the manager’s performance and strong/weak points led by the mayor or chair or by an outside facilitator in a closed session. In addition to decisions on compensation and continuity, managers use evaluation results in their plan for personal and professional development prior to the next evaluation cycle.
Governing bodies are using retreats to set out these initial expectations between themselves and the manager and to address other issues that contribute to effective governance. The idea behind a retreat is that the governing body and other invitees can convene at a time and a place different from regular meetings to deliberate about matters that are difficult to fit into the routine formal business that fills their regular meeting agendas. Retreats are valuable ways to develop strategic goals, objectives, and priorities to advance the governing body’s vision for the community; identify agreements and differences among members in their values, beliefs about, and goals for the community; plan how to achieve common goals and accommodate differences; understand one another’s expectations about working together and learn individual leadership styles and behaviors; build teamwork; and review progress in achieving previously agreed-upon goals. Facilitators from outside the local government are often used to bring neutrality into the retreat proceedings and to enhance listening and communications among the participants. Annual retreats are an effective way to build and sustain a unity of effort that is difficult to develop in the course of a governing body’s regular meetings and to help keep elected officials and the manager focused on the big picture for the community (Duggan & Conduff, 2016, pp. 87–96).
Increasingly, managers are giving feedback regarding the governing body’s performance as councils and boards evaluate themselves as decision-making bodies and representatives of the citizens. As discussed previously, managing, leading, and governing in council–manager communities are shared responsibilities. Just as the governing body expects the manager to conduct himself or herself in accordance with state statutes, local ordinances, and the ICMA Code of Ethics, the manager has expectations of the governing body that impact upon his or her performance. These might include looking to the council or board to take ownership of its decisions, to recognize and uphold its role as policy maker (not micromanager), to defend staff members when they are criticized for carrying out council or board policy, to be decisive and consistent, and to show respect and support for professional staff. One useful approach involves elected officials filling out questionnaires assessing how the governing body as a unit sets goals, makes policy decisions, establishes priorities, understands the budget, engages the public, operates in a businesslike manner, handles information provided by the professional staff, and relates to the manager.
For some governing bodies, annually evaluating the manager might seem to be a big step, and evaluating their own effectiveness could be viewed as potentially disruptive and dysfunctional. However, just as regular feedback can enhance the manager’s performance, introspection by the governing body as to how it conducts its work and relates to professional staff can lead to improvements in its decision-making effectiveness and ability to represent the community.
There is no set formula for closing the gaps between elected officials and managers and for developing a high-performing governing body, but meeting the above expectations are important steps in this direction. While the lines between policy and administration will always be blurred, the desired outcome is for governing body members and managers to be able and willing to successfully balance a number of competing interests—to focus on the vision and big picture for the community while dealing with concrete projects and programs, to think and act long-term and strategically while dealing with pressing immediate problems and needs, and to decide on the collective best interest while satisfying constituent expectations.
NOTE

1. Portions of this section have been excerpted from Stenberg (2014, pp. 66–70).
REFERENCES
Alliance for Innovation. (2016). Workforce of tomorrow. Phoenix, AZ: Author.
Duggan, K., & Conduff, M. (2016). Making it work: The essentials of council–manager relations. Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association.
Illinois General Assembly. (n.d.). Retrieved April 2, 2017, from http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs.asp

International City/County Management Association. (2003). ICMA model employment agreement. Retrieved March 19, 2017, from http://icma.org/en/icma/career_network/career_resources/model_employment_agreement

Nalbandian, J. (2016). High-performance local government. Public Management, 98(1), 22–23.
Nalbandian, J., & Nalbandian, C. (2002, December). Contemporary challenges in local government. Public Management, 84, 6–11.
National Civic League. (2014). Model city charter (8th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Author.
Nelson, K. L., & Svara, J. H. (2014). Upholding and expanding the roles of local government managers: State of the profession 2012. In The municipal year book 2014 (pp. 3–20). Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association.
Neu, C. H., Jr. (2003, October). The manager as coach: Increasing the effectiveness of elected officials. ICMA IQ Report, 10.
Stenberg, C. W. (2014). City and county managers. In F. S. Bluestein (Ed.), County and municipal government in North Carolina. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Government.
Svara, J. H. (1985). Dichotomy and duality: Reconceptualizing the relationship between policy and administration in council–manager cities. Public Administration Review, 45(1), 221–232.
Upshaw, V. M. (2014). How are we doing? Evaluating manager and board performance. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Government.
White, L. D. (1927). The city manager. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Wilson, R. C., Jr. (2013). Rethinking public administration: The case for management (2nd ed.). Irvine, CA: Melvin & Leigh, Publishers.
Wiseman, P. (2005). Examining Council Contact with Subordinate Staff in Large and Mid-Size North Carolina Municipalities. Paper submitted to the faculty of The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of master of public administration.
RESOURCE LIST/TO EXPLORE FURTHER
Books/Articles
Upshaw, V. M. (2014). How are we doing? Evaluating manager and board performance. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina School of Government.

4

Place your order
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
$26
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Urgency
Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more

Order your paper today and save 30% with the discount code HAPPY

X
Open chat
1
You can contact our live agent via WhatsApp! Via + 1 323 412 5597

Feel free to ask questions, clarifications, or discounts available when placing an order.

Order your essay today and save 30% with the discount code HAPPY