Problems in American Democracy

by Thames Williamson

CHAPTER XLIX

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

A. DEVELOPMENT OF THE AMERICAN MUNICIPALITY [Footnote: For an extended
account of American municipal development, see Fairlie's Municipal
Administration. An excellent summary of Fairlie is found in
Guitteau's Government and Politics in the United States, Houghton
Mifflin Co., Boston, 1920.]

620. RAPID GROWTH OF AMERICAN CITIES.—A striking feature of American life is the rapidity with which our cities have grown. At the time of Washington's first inauguration, the United States were so predominantly rural that only about one thirtieth of our population was found in the cities. With the progress of the Industrial Revolution came an unprecedented development of transportation and the factory system. More and more people made their homes in the cities, until in 1890 approximately a third of the people of the United States were living in cities. According to the census of 1920 more than half of our population is concentrated in towns and cities.

621. THE AMERICAN CITY BEFORE THE REVOLUTION.—New York, now the largest American city, is also the oldest, having received its charter in 1686. Between that date and the outbreak of the Revolution, nineteen other municipalities received charters. The colonial cities modelled their organization after the English borough. Practically all authority was vested in a council, consisting of a mayor, recorder, aldermen, and councilmen, acting as a single body. The mayor was either appointed by the Governor, or elected by the council. The chief duty of the mayor was to preside over the council and execute its ordinances.

622. THE AMERICAN CITY, 1775-1825.—Several important changes in the character of the American city took place in the half century which followed the Declaration of Independence.

The power to grant charters to cities was transferred from the Governor to the state legislature. This was the natural outcome of an increasing suspicion of the executive authority, and a corresponding increase of faith in the state legislature. Before the end of this period the city came definitely under the control of the state legislature. In the absence of constitutional restrictions, the legislature has continued to exercise an almost dictatorial control over the cities within its borders.

Also typical of this period was the subordination of city affairs to state and national politics.

623. THE AMERICAN CITY, 1825-1850.—During this period a number of new cities sprang into prominence. Immigration was increasing, and the industrialization of the country was crowding the population into larger and larger units.

New York, Boston, St. Louis, and other cities adopted the two- chambered-council plan.

The passion for democratic control swept away the property qualifications prescribed by some of the early city charters, and practically attained universal manhood suffrage. The demand for popular control likewise led to the present practice of choosing the mayor by popular vote, the older methods of State appointment or council election being discarded.

624. THE AMERICAN CITY, 1850-1875.—Many pressing municipal problems appeared in this period. The functions of the American city became more numerous and more complex. Police and fire systems were installed; waterworks, sewer systems, and city parks were provided; education and charitable relief were developed.

Under the stress of administering these additional functions, cities applied more and more frequently to the state legislature for special legislation granting them additional powers. State legislatures tended to pass such special acts freely, with the result that corrupt and pernicious legislation became common in many states. Special interests engaged in lobbying, bribery, and log-rolling to secure special favors from legislatures. Public service corporations often secured valuable franchises on terms that did not adequately protect the public interest.

625. MUNICIPAL REFORM.—The period since 1875 and especially since 1900 has been marked by a strong tendency to reform municipal government.

The abuse of power by the city council in many instances forfeited the respect with which the public had formerly regarded that body. The power to appoint various city officials was transferred from the council to the voters, and many of the functions formerly exercised by the council were entrusted to newly created municipal boards.

In about half the states constitutional provisions now forbid the legislature to pass special acts concerning municipalities. In other states the constitution enumerates a large number of subjects with regard to which the legislature cannot enact special legislation. In some states the cities of the state are classified into two or more groups, according to population; the legislature is compelled to designate the group or groups to which statutes are to apply. In about a dozen states certain types of cities are allowed to frame and amend their own charters, provided that such acts are not inconsistent with the constitution and statutes of the state.

Municipal civil service reform is of increasing importance, more than 200 American cities having sanctioned it in some form. As applied to municipal affairs the merit system includes a municipal commission, appointed by the mayor; a system of competitive examinations designed to test character and capacity; a plan for requiring the appointing officer in each department of city government to select his subordinates from an eligible list; a method of removing officials; and sometimes a system of pensioning employees who have grown old in the service.

The movement for popular control has been closely associated with municipal development. The tendency to shorten the ballot, the holding of municipal elections at a different time than state and national elections, and the concentration of administrative officers under a responsible appointing head, are steps in this direction. In many states the Direct Primary has been intimately associated with municipal development. The Initiative, Referendum, and Recall have been adopted in a large number of cities, especially where the mayor- council plan has been abandoned for the commission form of government.

B. MUNICIPAL ORGANIZATION

626. THE THREE TYPES OF CITY GOVERNMENT.—The three types of city government in the United States are the mayor-council plan, the commission plan, and the city manager plan. [Footnote: For a description of the commission and city manager plans of city government, see Chapter XXXVI.] The commission plan is a new form of city government which has been designed to overcome the defects of the old mayor-council plan, while the city manager plan is a modification of the commission plan. Of recent years both the commission plan and the city manager plan have spread rapidly, but it is still true that few American cities of any appreciable size have adopted either of these two plans. The old mayor-council plan prevails in most American cities, and for this reason the remainder of this chapter will be devoted to a description of this form of government.

627. THE CITY COUNCIL: ORGANIZATION.—Usually the city council is a single-chambered body, though some of the larger cities have from time to time experimented with a double-chambered council. In some cities councilmen are chosen on a general ticket, but in most cases the council consists of one member from each ward or district into which the city is divided. Councilmen must be voters in the city in which they serve, and by custom they are generally required to be residents of the ward from which they are chosen. The terms of councilmen vary from one to four years, two years being the average term. In the smaller cities councilmen are usually unpaid, but in the larger municipalities they receive a stated salary.

628. THE CITY COUNCIL: POWERS.—The typical American city is subservient to the state legislature, the powers of city government being enumerated in a charter received from the legislature. These enumerated powers have been rather narrowly interpreted by the courts.

The council enjoys a measure of police power, which it may invoke to protect the health and to further the well-being of the city's inhabitants. The exercise of this police power, however, must not conflict with state law.

The council has the power to levy taxes to defray expenses incurred in performing municipal functions. State constitutions and legislatures limit this power rather narrowly, however. Subject to a similar limitation is the council's power to raise money through the issue of bonds.

City councils may act as the agents of the state government in matters affecting education and charitable relief.

629. THE CITY COUNCIL: PROCEDURE.—The city council meets periodically, generally weekly or bi-weekly. It determines its own rules of procedure and keeps a journal. The committee system is used for the dispatch of business. Ordinances may be proposed by any member of the council. After being introduced, ordinances are read by title and are referred to the proper committee. A second and third reading at subsequent meetings are required. If the ordinance is approved by a majority of the council, it is signed by the presiding officer, and sent to the mayor. In many cities the mayor may veto any ordinance passed by the council. In case of a veto the measure becomes law only if passed by a two thirds—in some cities three fourths or four fifths—vote of the council. In those cities where the mayor has no veto power, the ordinance goes into effect immediately upon being passed by the council.

630. THE MAYOR.—In all cities where the mayor-council plan of government prevails, the chief executive officer is the mayor or chief magistrate. This officer is usually elected by popular vote, for a term varying from one to four years. Usually the term is two years, though in New England a one-year term is more common. The mayor is paid a salary which ranges from a few hundred dollars in the smaller cities to several thousands of dollars in a number of the larger municipalities.

631. THE MAYOR AND THE COUNCIL.—It is the duty of the mayor to communicate at least once a year to the city council a general statement of the administration and financial condition of the city. The mayor may also recommend to the city council, in his annual message or otherwise, the passage of ordinances which he considers needful. In smaller cities, and in a few of the larger municipalities, the mayor presides over the council and has a casting vote in case of a tie, but in most of the larger cities he is not a member of the council. In most cities he has the veto power. In many of the more recent city charters, the mayor is given the power to veto separate items in an appropriation bill, while approving the remainder of the measure, just as some Governors may veto separate items in appropriations bills enacted by the state legislature.

632. ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES OF THE MAYOR.—The mayor stands at the head of the city administration, but the extent of his control varies from city to city. In the last half century the decline in popular favor of the city council has been accompanied by a growing tendency to enlarge the administrative powers of the mayor. In many of the smaller cities the mayor is still little more than a presiding officer of the council. In such cities subordinate executive officials are usually chosen by popular vote or are appointed by the council. In other cities the mayor may appoint the chief administrative officials, subject to the consent of the council. In still other cities, including many of the larger municipalities, the mayor may both appoint and remove the heads of the executive departments, without interference on the part of the council.

633. OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS.—Such highly complex and important matters as health, education, parks, charities, police, fire protection, and public works are the concern of the numerous administrative officials of the city. Administrative work is carried on by two methods, first, the board system, in which such concerns as schools, public health, and police are managed by boards composed of members of the city council; and second, single commissioners, who are more or less under the control of the mayor. The board system has proved less efficient than the single commissioner plan, and accordingly there is a tendency to abandon the former for the latter plan.