Form and Composition of Government

– Albuquerque Tribune, March 6, 2003

Within a year, voters of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County will vote on a new charter merging city and county governments. The writing of a new charter presents an opportunity to assess almost thirty years of experience under the present systems and forge a new form of government that combines the best attributes of each.

Voters in the city of Albuquerque are familiar with the Mayor/ Council form, which sets up a "separation of powers." Its major feature is that the legislative body, the City Council, operates separately from the executive branch administered by an elected mayor. Voters in the unincorporated areas of Bernalillo County are familiar with the traditional Commission/Manager or "unified" form, in which a five-member districted County Commission serves as the governing body and hires a county manager to perform executive functions.

History
Prior to 1974, both the city and county had Commission/Manager systems. Former Mayor David Rusk in a report to the Charter Commission describes the reform movements of the early 1970's, which led to the city's full-time mayor directly elected by the voters and a larger districted city council and county commission. These were much-needed changes. They provided the leadership of an elected mayor and increased citizens' sense of direct representation. Yet the systems created in 1974 may again need to evolve to respond to changes that have occurred since then.

How is it working for us?

City government. Rusk’s report describes issues that have arisen under the Mayor/Council system.

• The revolving door to the mayor’s office every four years has created "great instability" and loss of institutional memory in the executive branch.
  
• The political impacts of turnover on professional city services have increased since 1989 when the city charter was amended to give the Mayor rather than the CAO authority to appoint and fire department heads.
  
• In recent years with run-offs ruled unconstitutional, mayors have lacked breadth of support and true mandate, with the last two mayors elected by only 9% and 12% of registered voters, respectively.
  
• Many Albuquerque mayors, frustrated with council involvement in "executive" matters have called for stronger barriers and clearer separation of legislative and executive roles.
  
• Policy-making is divided and policy-making deadlock is a continual threat.
  
• Acrimonious conflicts between the mayor and council are a recurring dynamic. The principle of separation of powers is the foundation for a conflict pattern of interaction among officials, especially elected officials, who have incentive to compete with one another to accomplish their agendas.
  
• Staff build-ups on both sides over the years waste resources, duplicate services and fuel competition
  .
• Regarding the 9-member districted city council, Rusk describes "neighborhood-based gridlock" noting that it is increasingly difficult to gain council approval for new initiatives that would benefit the city as a whole but face strong local opposition. Over 300 neighborhood associations have become strong players in the development process and this affects city-wide planning and zoning policy and results in costly lawsuits.

According to Tanis Salant of the National Civic League, the "Separation of Powers form of government was created to prevent bad things from happening."

County government. Rusk notes the "level of effectiveness and stability" under the long-term tenure of the current County Manager and the political power resulting from its partisan election system. Other issues involve leadership and representation.

• According to UNM political science professor Timothy Krebs, a pure Commission/ Manager system without a separately elected mayor can create a "crisis of leadership" and "stagnation in policy-making" in dealing with important societal issues.
  
• Five districts for the entire county may not give enough voice to communities of interest, as citizens from unincorporated areas voice dissatisfaction with urbanization and development decisions that threaten their rural lifestyle.

What kind of government do we want?
For guidance, the Charter Commission has reviewed the literature, turned to the testimony of national and local experts and listened to citizen testimony. What has emerged from these discussions is a proposal for a combination of the two basic forms, in which a mayor is elected at-large but is also part of the governing body. Dr. Tanis Salant of the National League of Cities told the Charter Commission that "Unification of Powers was created to make good things happen. Strong political leadership can occur under both forms, but a mayor and council functioning as a cohesive team is a better form for creating a long-term vision with mutually agreed upon goals." Making the mayor a co-policy maker on the governing body can change the dynamics from conflict to cooperation on the vital activity of making and carrying out community-wide policies.

Other Communities
Within the southwestern region, an overwhelming majority of comparable communities use this "unified" form of government that (1) combines executive and legislative branches in a council or commission and (2) elects a mayor community-wide. Among them are Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, Kansas City, Tucson, Phoenix, Oklahoma City, San Antonio, San Jose, San Diego, and Colorado Springs. Out of 199 communities with populations numbering 100,000 or more, 112 of them, mostly newer communities in the west, use this form, whereas older large central cities in the east and mid-west tend to have the Mayor/ Council system. In addition to Albuquerque, others in our region with the latter system are El Paso, Tulsa, and Denver.

What kind of leadership do we want?
Inspirational and visionary mayors can emerge under any form, but they have different leadership styles. The "unified" form of government vests leadership in the governing body, with the mayor in a facilitative role. This type of facilitative mayor works with and through others and is a cohesive influence on the commission. The mayor is elected community-wide, presides over the governing body, is a voting member or tie-breaker, and proposes legislation. Under this system, the governing body, including the mayor, has the executive power to appoint and remove the CAO or manager, who in turn appoints department heads and controls the merit system.

Giving the mayor the power to propose legislation and the power of "first review" over the budget provides the tools and powers needed to be a broad community leader. Having a mayor as part of a new "unified" commission or council would be a dramatic departure from the current system.

Or should leadership continue to be vested in a strong executive mayor with a top-down style, who runs a separate executive branch? Experts caution against creating a "partial-executive" mayor with both voting and veto power, as this creates ambiguity in the mayor's role and sets up conflict with the commission and manager.

We need to choose the type of leader we want and give him or her the tools to be effective. Regardless of style, direct election gives any mayor visibility in the community and opportunity to build a coalition that supports his or her efforts to work as a guiding force.

Composition and Size of the Commission
Mayor/Council forms of government tend to have larger legislative bodies; for example, the cities of Chicago and New York have 50 members of the assembly, respectively, with 11-15 being typical in western Mayor/Council examples. The newer "unified" Mayor/Commission cities have commissions ranging from 5 to 14 members.

Advantages of a larger number include greater focus on constituent services and communities of interest and less expensive campaigning, but smaller districts can lead to too much emphasis on "pot-hole" politics or parochial district needs. The interest of rural areas may be ignored by majorities representing the interests of urbanized areas.

Smaller numbers foster teamwork, functioning more like boards of directors with an incentive to find common interests and implement long-term community goals. Consolidating staffs could save resources and allow more efficient focus on constituent services. These larger districts would likely require more expensive campaigning.

Some communities in the region have a combination of districted and at-large seats. Rusk points out that Greater Albuquerque would be a municipal corporation with a $1 billion a year budget. At-large members have a broader constituency and a clearer obligation to weigh the entire community's interests, but may upset the balance of district representation. A facilitative mayor elected at-large in a unified government can moderate between service to districts and service to the community as a whole.

The Charter Commission invites the community to participate in making these decisions at a public hearing on Friday March 7 from 2 to 5 pm in the Commission Chambers at 1 Civic Plaza.

– Josephine Porter, President, Albuquerque-Bernalillo County League of Women Voters
– Signe Rich, Executive Director, Shared Vision