The City of Champaign has a weak mayor. Nothing personally against the good mayor, but it is widely accepted that Steve Carter holds the power in Champaign.
The City of Urbana has a powerful mayor. Everyone now appreciates that if she wakes up on the wrong side of the bed, she might fire you in five minutes if you disagree with her. Score one for the strong mayor side making city employees more accountable.
The voters didn't elect Steve Carter and voters did elect Mayor Prussing. Score one for the strong mayor side.
Change can happen more quickly in Urbana. Score one for the strong mayor side.
The city staff of Urbana is going to do what the mayor says. The city of Champaign staff may or may not do what the mayor says. Score one for the strong mayor side.
Urbana city mayor can outline what priorities are for the city staff. Champaign city staff sets it's priorities according to the long term plan and it really doesn't seem to matter what mayor thinks the priorities should be. Score one for the strong mayor side.
In Champaign, everyone knows that it is not in your best interests not to disagree (too much) with city staff on something. In Urbana, if you disagree with city staff on something, the Mayor/council takes it under advisement. Score one for the strong mayor side.
In Champaign, the city staff seems to provide insulation from shady politics. Score one for the weak mayor.
In Champaign, things are looking pretty good overall. In Urbana, there are looking at very tough decisions in the near future. Score one (maybe more) for the weak mayor side.
We can look at two cities and see how they have progressed under these systems and determine which one we think is better based on results. Contrary to recent trends, I don't have a particular side that I favor. So which one is the better system? Am I missing something in my analysis? Am I just wrong on some assumptions?
If people are interested, the items to look up are "city manager" form of government and "aldermanic" form of government. They are two official systems, adopted by various cities. Chicago also has the aldermanic system. Just to make it clear that it's truly nothing to do with the individuals in the office or their "happening" to cede power to staff or not, they are two actually different systems of government.
I recall there being some discussion of this in "Illinois Politics and Government" by James Nowlan (the orange book). It's getting a bit dated now but it's a pretty good guide to various government issues in IL, including how various power seats work.
As for the problems facing Urbana (or Champaign for that matter), they aren't rooted in the form of government, I don't think, but it is interesting to see how the different systems handle various issues.
There are pluses and minuses to each system, and how they work depend often on who is in office. Up until our current governor took office, the system worked fairly well, but because of the personalities involved, we are at a standstill at the state level, yet I doubt if many people advocate a complete overhaul of the government--just the ability to recall.
I reallly do not get this at all. Maybe I am mising something, but my understanding is that both Champaign and Urbana are municipal corporations. I know they were back from 1978-1982 when I was on the Urbana City Council. The alderman, whether they are from Urbana or Champaign are like directors of the corporation. The voters are like the shareholders with every shareholder getting one vote. The mayor is like the president. He runs the executive branch of government and has a staff that technically work for the mayor. All the major non-elective offices are confirmed by vote of the city council. Sometimes the posts have little or no duties or have duties that are handled day to day by a full time person. An example.
When I came on the Urbana City Council, Dick Franks was my next door neighbor. He was the city manager. He suggested I run on a platform to bring to the City of Urbana a comptroller. Duane Eckerty, long since deceased, was the County Clerk charged with depositing revenues. This was a really clunky procedure that needed to be handled by someone with some training in it. Ron Eldridge, who is still there today, really was responsible for taking Urbana out of the stone age.
Urbana had another cerimonial office called City Treasurer. After 4 years on the Council, I ran for Treasurer on a platform to eliminate the office. I did not spend one dime on the campaign and lost to Reverand Harris by 6 votes city wide. He took the pay for 4 years and then the council merged the functions elsewhere. The only thing the Treasurer really did was to sign the checks every two weeks. So what is my point.
Some places elect a City Manger instead of calling it a mayor. It all depends upon the constitution and by laws (ordinances) of the City. In Laural Prussing's case, she just felt that Bruce Walden was getting a little too big for his britches. She also has a little narcissism in her bonnet as we all do. Even if she is the best and brightest mayor/manager, she will not be in that position forever and undoubedly will be replaced with a Rod Blagojevich type which will probably be a disaster. Dick Franks developed a professional staff. I am afraid that in time, Laura will hurt the professionalism of the staff. What I would hope she will do is to work on a better job description for a revamped line and staff organization. The mayor should be a big picture person organizaing study sessions on how to make the organization run better. When you get down too much in the nitty gritty, you sometimes cannot see the forest for the trees.
Whenever directors try to run an organization, it usually will not work out. It may work out for a short period of time, but never over the long haul. These folks are never as good as they think they are because they do not have the experience. It is like a dental hygenist thinking she can start drilling. It might work for awhile, but not in the long run. I see this all the time in real estate closings. With that much money on the line, it is a good idea to get a professional for the job. Same with the mayor.
.
"Whenever directors try to run an organization, it usually will not work out."
This makes sense. We can look at the County Nursing Home where it has 27 (I think) directors as an example. At the same time, there is now a group of sub-directors that reports to the larger group of directors. I don't see that ever working, especially when the group of directors tries to micro-manage the directors.
I found a nice comparative overview (which I have edited for space) from Mike Monson of the N-G from 2006:
"Urbana has a mayor-aldermanic form of government. The mayor and city clerk are elected citywide, but the seven aldermen are elected from separate wards. Urbana officials are elected on a partisan basis, and everyone runs for election every four years.
In Urbana, Mayor Laurel Prussing is the chief executive officer. She sets administrative policy, appoints department heads annually and nominates members of city commissions and boards, though such appointments require council ratification. Urbana's mayor has veto power; it takes five of seven aldermen to override a veto.
Champaign has a city-manager form of government, with eight council members and mayor elected on a nonpartisan basis. Three council members and the mayor are elected citywide; five seats are elected from districts. Elections are staggered every two years, with district and at-large elections held separately.
The city council selects the city manager, who then, by law, reports to the entire council, not just the mayor, and acts as a sort of chief executive officer.
The city manager appoints and fires department heads without a ratifying vote of the city council and has all administrative responsibilities."
Though technically nonpartisan, most Champaign City Council members are somewhat active in the local Republican or Democratic party organizations, and their party affiliation is often known by the politically aware. Party activists often provide campaign help for candidates of a like political philosophy.
I don't understand this sentence, "In Champaign, everyone knows that it is not in your best interests not to disagree (too much) with city staff on something."
I think you have too many "nots" in there.
In any event, despite the fact that many initiatives are brought to the Council by city staff, there is no doubt that the City Council completely controls the decisions in Champaign. It may seem like we (Council Members) almost always agree with staff, but that's because the issues are thoroughly vetted first in meetings, study sessions, etc. We do this to work more efficiently and to avoid wasting time on issues that just can't/won't pass. That's also why we occasionally have those supposedly "super-secret" meetings with staff. It's not to avoid the Open Meetings Act; it's to avoid wasting time.
When an issue isn't properly run through the Council first, then it gets rejected or sent back to staff. This happens on a fairly rare basis, because our communication is pretty good. But, it does happen. Remember last week when the Council pretty much unanimously rejected the staff recommendation for building fences around dumpsters? ...or all of the times that staff's ideas for liquor laws were rejected?
The entire set of policies, goals, timelines, and priorities is determined formally by Council. Staff acts based upon these priorities and updates us regularly on progress. Despite the fact that Council makes the ultimate decisions, the weak mayor form of government works in Champaign, because our staff is awesome!