CITY GOVERNMENT
_The purpose of this chapter is to explain who the city authorities
are and what they do._
[Sidenote: To be a city a place must have a charter.]
=What is a City?=—The poet Cowper once said that “God made the country
and man made the town”, a remark which was not intended to flatter the
cities. Nor is there any reason why life in a crowded community should
particularly appeal to poets although it may have a strong fascination
for more worldly-minded men. A large body of people living closely
together, a place of busy streets and tall buildings, a huge, noisy,
jostling throng—that is the customary notion of an American city, and on
the whole it is not far wide of the facts. Not all cities, however, are
big, busy, and congested. In the entire United States there are today
about a thousand places which call themselves cities, yet more than half
of them are places of less than fifteen thousand people. In
Massachusetts no place can become a city until it has at least ten
thousand people; but in Oklahoma the figure is two thousand and in
Kansas only two hundred. A city may be anything, therefore, from a rural
hamlet with only a few hundred people to a great metropolitan community
with several millions. Size or population are not the things that
determine cityhood. A place is a city if it has been so incorporated and
possesses a city charter. So far as its government is concerned, it
cannot be called a city, no matter how populous it may be, unless it has
been given a charter by authority of the state.[65] In the West the
practice has been to grant such charters to relatively small places; in
the East the requirements are more strict.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE GROWTH OF AMERICAN CITIES
The table and diagram on the reverse of this page
will serve to make clear the phenomenal growth of
American cities during the past hundred and thirty
years. In 1820 only one person in twenty lived
in cities and towns of over 8,000 population;
today nine persons in every twenty live in these
communities. The population of the whole country has
been growing steadily during the past hundred
years; but the cities have been increasing even
more rapidly. These figures should be studied in
connection with the discussion on pages 184-186.
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ —POPULATION IN PLACES OF 8,000 INHABITANTS OR MORE: │
│ 1790-1920. │
╞═══════╤════════════╦════════════════════════════════════╡
│ │ ║PLACES OF 8,000 INHABITANTS OR MORE.│
│ │ ║ —————————————————————————————————— │
│CENSUS │ Total ║Population. │Number of │Per cent of │
│ YEAR. │Population. ║ │ places. │ total │
│ │ ║ │ │population. │
├───────┼────────────╫────────────┼──────────┼────────────┤
│1920 │ 105,710,620║ 46,307,640│ 924│ 43.8│
│1910 │ 91,972,256║ 35,570,334│ 768│ 38.7│
│1900 │ 75,994,575║ 25,018,335│ 547│ 32.9│
│1890 │ 62,947,714║ 18,244,239│ 445│ 29.0│
│1880 │ 50,155,783║ 11,365,698│ 285│ 22.7│
│1870 │ 38,558,371║ 8,071,875│ 226│ 20.9│
│1860 │ 31,443,321║ 5,072,256│ 141│ 16.1│
│1850 │ 23,191,876║ 2,897,586│ 85│ 12.5│
│1840 │ 17,069,453║ 1,453,994│ 44│ 8.5│
│1830 │ 12,866,020║ 864,509│ 26│ 6.7│
│1820 │ 9,638,453║ 475,135│ 13│ 4.9│
│1810 │ 7,239,881║ 356,920│ 11│ 4.9│
│1800 │ 5,308,483║ 210,873│ 6│ 4.0│
│1790 │ 3,929,214║ 131,472│ 6│ 3.3│
└───────┴────────────╨────────────┴──────────┴────────────┘
[Illustration:
POPULATION IN PLACES OF 8,000 INHABITANTS OR MORE AT
EACH CENSUS: 1790-1920.]
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Sidenote: Why American cities have grown so rapidly.]
=The Phenomenal Growth of Cities.=—The remarkable drift of population
into the cities has already been pointed out. It is one of the most
striking social facts in American history during the past hundred
years.[66] In the days when the national constitution was framed there
were only eight or ten places that could be called cities and even these
were, with one or two exceptions, nothing but good-sized towns. New
York, the largest of them, had a population of less than 50,000; it has
grown a hundred-fold since that time. In Washington’s day no country had
as many as fifty cities and the largest city in the world, London, had
less than a million people. The cities counted for very little in the
early days of the Republic; they then contained less than five per cent
of the national population. During the course of the nineteenth century,
however, cities sprang into existence everywhere; a large part of the
immigration poured into them; the development of industry and commerce
built them up; and today about half the people of the United States
reside in cities of all sizes. There are now more cities in America than
in any other country and more large cities. We have twelve great centers
with populations exceeding half a million,[67] while the entire British
empire (including India, Canada, and Australia) has only ten; Germany
has only four and France has only two. At the present rate of progress
the United States in 1950 will probably contain more large cities than
all the rest of the world put together. The causes of this remarkable
growth have been indicated elsewhere and there is no need to repeat
them. Factories, railroads, and steamships have been the great factors
in this urban expansion.
[Sidenote: Some features of city life:]
=Effects of City Growth upon the National Life.=—The growth of large
cities has had profound effects upon American life and temperament. It
has changed the whole character of the country, its problems and its
habits of mind. A century ago the United States was predominantly an
agricultural land; the great majority of the people were engaged in
earning their living from the soil. They had the same occupation and
common interests. [Sidenote: 1. Diversity of occupation.] But with the
growth of industries in cities the occupations of the people have become
diversified, and no bond of common vocation holds the population
together. The city-worker in the shops and factories is employed at a
specialized task which the division of labor assigns to him (see pp.
44-46); he develops expertness at this one task and depends upon others
for everything else. The farmer supplies many of his own wants, but the
industrial worker depends almost wholly upon others. [Sidenote: 2. The
absence of strong home ties.] Among the rural population there is a
large property-owning class, men who own their farms and homes; but in
the cities, particularly in the larger cities, the great majority of the
people live in homes that are owned by others. In New York City seven
families out of every eight live in rented houses or apartments; in
Boston four out of every five. This tends to make the population
restless; the people are constantly moving about from one job to another
and from one home to another; they do not acquire a strong attachment to
any neighborhood, as is the case in rural districts. One result of this
is that people in the crowded centers know little about their neighbors,
and strange as it may seem, the crowded sections of the large cities are
in some respects the most lonely places in the world.[68]
[Sidenote: 3. The docility of the people.]
The tendency of the city population is to become absorbed in its daily
work, to depend upon the newspapers for its opinions and to display
marked docility in obeying its leaders. The people of the cities depend
upon official or professional organizations for pretty nearly
everything: if disorder breaks out, they expect the police to attend to
it; when they want recreation, they expect the city authorities to
provide it (by furnishing parks, playgrounds, band concerts,
neighborhood dances, and so on); the functions of the home are largely
given over to the school, the club, and the social organizations. The
city is thought to be radical; but it is radical only in spots. Its
population as a whole tends to be conservative (see p. 108, footnote).
[Sidenote: 4. A place of extremes.]
The city is a place where extremes meet. Great wealth and abject poverty
exist in the cities side by side; in the rural districts there is a
closer approach to a common level. The same is true if we compare city
and country from the standpoint of education, earning-power, obedience
to law, respect for government, or any other social feature. The city
runs to extremes; it contains both the highest erudition and the most
utter ignorance; it has earners of enormous incomes and plenty of people
who can earn no incomes at all; it has reactionaries in one quarter and
anarchists in another—a strange social mosaic when you study it and very
much in contrast with the general uniformity of the rural area.
[Sidenote: 5. A place of leadership.]
Nevertheless, along nearly all lines of activity the cities lead the
nation. To say that half the people live in cities does not tell the
whole story. The influence which this half exerts is greater than its
numerical strength implies. The cities are the headquarters of those who
direct the great industries, the transportation systems, and the banking
interests of the country. The newspapers of the great cities influence
the moulding of public opinion the country over. The political power of
the cities, their influence upon every phase of public policy is very
great. Hence the character and the spirit of the cities will go far to
determine the national characteristics of the future.
[Sidenote: The city charter.]
=The City and the State.=—The inhabitants of a city are a corporate body
with certain legal rights and privileges. These rights are granted to
them by the state in their city charter.[69] The charter is a document
having the force of law; it enumerates the powers of the city, tells
what form of government the inhabitants shall have, and determines the
duties of the various city officials. In the larger cities it is a very
long document covering a hundred printed pages or more.
[Sidenote: 1. The general charter plan.]
How are these charters framed and under what arrangements are they
granted to cities? Three or four different plans are in vogue. In some
states the legislature has passed a general law relating to cities, and
their charters are all alike in accordance with the provisions of this
law. The difficulty with this plan is that cities differ greatly in size
and in the nature of their problems. The charter that suits one may not
fit another. A seaport city, for example, needs a harbor commission with
power to license pilots and regulate the anchoring-places of ships; but
it is absurd to require, for the sake of uniformity, that inland cities
shall also have harbor boards. To render this general charter system
more flexible, therefore, some states have adopted the expedient of
dividing cities, according to their size, into three or four classes and
giving a uniform charter to all cities in the same class.[70]
[Sidenote: 2. The special charter plan.]
A more common method is to deal with each city as a special case, giving
it a charter by special act of the legislature, the result of this plan
being that no two cities of the state are governed in exactly the same
way. The special charter system has the merit of adapting the form of
government to the immediate needs of each particular city; but it places
a great burden upon the legislature, for whenever any city desires an
amendment to its charter a special legislative act is necessary. The
system also encourages the legislature to interfere in city affairs,
making changes in city charters on its own initiative without any
request from the citizens. This is particularly objectionable because so
many members of the legislature come from rural districts and
consequently have little or no knowledge of the city’s problems.
[Sidenote: 3. Home rule charters.]
=Municipal Home Rule.=—In order to diminish this interference by the
legislature many states have made provision for municipal home rule.
This is a plan whereby cities make their own charters just as states
frame their own constitutions. The methods by which they do this vary
somewhat from state to state but everywhere the main idea is the same.
The voters of the city elect a charter commission, or board of
freeholders as it is sometimes called. This miniature constitutional
convention, made up of perhaps fifteen or twenty members, proceeds to
draw up the provisions of a new city charter. When their work is
finished they submit it to the people of the city at an election and if
the people approve it, the charter goes into effect. In some states
there are certain formalities to be gone through after the people have
voted, but the important thing is that each city obtains, sooner or
later, whatever sort of charter its voters desire. In this way the city
becomes supreme in the handling of its own local affairs.
[Sidenote: Difficulties connected with the home rule system.]
But the principle of municipal home rule is subject to some important
practical limitations, most of which can be indicated by asking the
question “What are _local_ affairs?” Where is the line to be drawn
between things which concern only the inhabitants of the city and those
which affect the interests of the whole state. At first glance it might
seem as though the care of streets, the maintenance of police, the
provision of a water-supply system, and the control of education were
matters of local concern, which each city ought to handle as its
citizens deem best.
But are any of them strictly local in nature? The main streets of the
city are arteries of traffic which link up with the state highways; were
it not for the speed-limit signs, it would be difficult to tell where
one class of streets ends and the other begins. The city police enforce
the state laws and it is hardly plausible to urge that the state
legislature shall have no control over the enforcement of its own
statutes. The work of the city police is not, therefore, a matter of
strictly local concern. So it is with health regulation, water supply,
education, poor-relief, and many other municipal functions. The state
cannot allow the children of any community to grow illiterate; it cannot
afford to take the risk of an epidemic through the defective care of the
public health in some negligent city; and it cannot fairly be expected
to stand by idly when a city neglects the sick or the poor because its
taxpayers wish to save money. Municipal home rule, if it were permitted
to cover all these things, would be another name for local chaos. The
relations between a city and the surrounding country are so intimate,
and each depends so much upon the other, that no rigid line of
separation between local and general interests can be drawn. To make
every city a little sovereign republic, wrapped up in its own local
affairs and subject to no control from outside, would not promote the
common interests of the whole people.
[Sidenote: Difference between the theory and the practice of home rule.]
Municipal home rule means in practice, therefore, that cities shall be
free to frame their own charters and to determine for themselves their
form of municipal government provided they do not infringe upon the
general laws of the state or detract from the authority of the state
officials. This is a very broad limitation and leaves the city a
comparatively narrow field of self-determination. Nevertheless, in spite
of this limitation the home rule system has substantial advantages. It
relieves the legislature from having to do with a multitude of local
matters at every session; it helps to separate municipal from state
politics; and it encourages the people of the city to take an active
interest in the making of their own charters.[71]
[Sidenote: The older form of municipal organization.]
=The Organization of City Government.=—Twenty-five years ago the general
plan of city government, as established by these charters, was fairly
uniform throughout the country. Charters were granted in different ways;
their provisions varied in many details; but the main framework of city
government which they set up had everywhere the same general features.
This was the mayor-and-council type of government, its chief feature
being a division of powers between the mayor, who performed executive
functions, and the council, which served as a municipal legislature. In
other words the cities were governed on the same principle as the nation
and the states. Even today most of the larger cities retain this plan.
[Sidenote: The newer forms.]
During the opening years of the twentieth century, however, a new plan
of city government came to the front and spread with great rapidity
through many sections of the country. This is known as the commission
system of government. Instead of dividing powers between a mayor and
council it combines them all in the hands of a small elective board.
This plan of government now prevails in several hundred American cities,
but most of them are small places.
Out of the commission plan has grown a third scheme of city government
during the past few years. This is called the city manager plan. It
gives to an elective commission or small council the general supervision
of city affairs, but entrusts to a professional administrator, or city
manager, the immediate charge of the actual work.
Let us look at these three types of city government a little more
closely.
=The Mayor-and-Council Plan.=—Among the fifty largest cities of the
United States, the mayor-and-council system of government exists in all
but twelve. Despite the spread of the other two plans, therefore, it is
still the prevailing type of government in the more important
communities. [Sidenote: Position and powers of the mayor.] The mayor,
under this system, is the city’s chief official. He is elected by the
people, usually for a two-year or four-year term, and the election
campaign is in most cities conducted on a party basis. Occasionally men
of high ability have served as mayors in various cities, but far more
frequently the position has gone to active politicians who can be relied
upon to use the powers and patronage of the office in promoting the
interests of the party.[72] The authority of the mayor is in general
like that exercised by the governor in state affairs. He makes
appointments (which in some cases require confirmation by the council);
and he may veto ordinances or resolutions passed by the council. In some
cities he has the exclusive right to propose expenditures and in some
others his assent is necessary in all municipal contracts. He represents
the city on all occasions of ceremony and is the “first citizen” of the
community. City charters usually provide that the mayor shall be
responsible for the general observance of the laws and the maintenance
of order. In a few cities he presides at meetings of the council but for
the most part he does not have this duty. When he desires to address the
council he does so by message or written communication.
[Sidenote: The city’s administrative officials.]
=The Heads of Departments.=—It is impossible, of course, for any one
official to manage directly all branches of city administration; hence
the mayor is assisted in this work by various officials and boards, such
as the superintendent of streets, the head of the police department, the
water board, and the board of health. [Sidenote: Commissioners _vs._
boards.] In the larger cities the tendency now is to put each department
of administration in charge of a single commissioner rather than a board
because the members of a board are too prone to disagree among
themselves and delay business. In the smaller cities the board system is
still widely used, partly because it is less expensive. When a single
official is given charge of a department (such as police, fire
protection, or streets) he must devote his whole time to it and hence
has to be paid a good salary; but members of a board can divide the work
among themselves, each giving only part-time to it, and serving without
any pay. It is questionable, however, if this policy means any saving in
the long run. When a city attains a population of twenty, thirty, or
forty thousand its administrative work grows to a point where it
requires close and skilled attention in order to prevent extravagance
and waste.
In behalf of the board system it is sometimes argued that it gives
political parties a chance to be represented, whereas a single official
represents the controlling party only. But there is no good reason why
departments which have purely business functions to perform should be
influenced by party considerations at all. The board system has some
distinct advantages when applied to such departments as schools, public
libraries, poor-relief, or city planning, where discussion and
deliberation are desirable; but it does not work well in such
departments as police, fire protection, and streets, for these are
branches of work which demand quick decisions and firm action. There is
no more reason for placing a board in charge of the city’s police than
for putting a board of generals in command of an army.
[Sidenote: How organized.]
=The City Council.=—The city council a generation ago was usually made
up of two branches; today it is almost everywhere composed of one
chamber only. A single chamber is quite enough for all that the council
now has to do. [Sidenote: Election by wards and election at large.] Its
members are elected, sometimes by wards, sometimes at large. The
objection to the ward system is that it encourages the election of
inferior men and inspires them, when elected, to strive for the
interests of their own particular wards rather than for the welfare of
the city as a whole. When councilmen are elected at large, on the other
hand, the dominant political party is likely to elect its entire slate
and control the whole council, thus allowing the minority no
representation at all. In some cities an endeavor has been made to meet
these objections by having the council chosen in part under each plan,
some councilmen from wards and some at large.[73]
[Sidenote: Its powers.]
The council enacts the local laws or ordinances and appropriates
whatever money is needed to carry on the city’s affairs. No expenditures
can be made without its approval and its consent is almost always needed
before municipal debts can be incurred. Its authority was large in
earlier days when it controlled through its committees the management of
the various city departments; but with the steady growth of the mayor’s
authority the powers of the council have been diminished. It is a
legislative body, and in city government there is relatively little
legislative work to be done. The state laws cover almost everything of
importance.
[Sidenote: Defects of the mayor-and-council plan.]
The chief defect of the mayor-and-council plan is its unwieldiness.
There are too many separate authorities. Power and responsibility are
scattered into too many hands. When things go wrong the council blames
the mayor; the mayor blames the council; the voters do not know who is
at fault. Time is wasted and money is misspent because independent
authorities fail to agree. The political bosses take advantage of this
situation to gain their own ends by helping one side or the other. The
citizen who tries to find out the real facts has a hard time of it. It
is like threading his way through a jungle. When he has a complaint to
make he is often referred from one official to another until he loses
patience. In the largest cities the mayor-and-council plan does not
operate so badly, because the methods of conducting business are more
definitely prescribed and the mayor is given so much power that he
cannot well evade the responsibility. It is in the smaller communities
that this plan of government obtains the least satisfactory results.
[Sidenote: How commission government began.]
=The Commission Plan.=—Twenty-five years ago it seemed impossible to
secure any substantial improvement in the administration of American
cities. Foreign observers spoke of city government as a “conspicuous
failure”, and there was a good deal of basis for that statement. People
realized that city government had become cumbrous and top-heavy. They
saw that the system of checks and balances, whatever its merits in state
and national government, was not working well in the cities. Yet they
had grown so accustomed to the complicated network of officials, boards,
and councils that they hesitated to sweep the whole thing away in order
to put some simple form of government in its place. So things drifted
along until 1901, when the city of Galveston, driven to heroic measures
as the result of a catastrophe, installed an entirely new scheme of
government known as the commission plan.[74] The success of this
experiment was so marked that other cities became interested and
followed Galveston’s example, until today the commission plan has been
established in nearly four hundred municipalities, scattered all over
the country.[75]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE COMMISSION PLAN
The way in which the various branches of municipal
administration are apportioned among members of
the city commission is shown by the diagram on the
other side of this page. The final administrative
authority, however, is not vested with these
commissioners (or councilmen as they are sometimes
called). It rests with the commission or council
as a body. All the lines of administrative
responsibility converge inward, which is what they
ought to do in any well-organized government.
Above the commission or council stands the
electorate, the whole body of voters, which can
exercise ultimate control over the whole city
government by means of the initiative, referendum,
and recall.
[Illustration]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Sidenote: What the plan involves.]
The commission plan is simplicity itself. The people elect a board or
commission of five members. This commission has entire control of the
city government in all its branches with the exception of schools, which
are usually left in charge of a school board. They pass the ordinances,
vote appropriations, make appointments, and award contracts. For
purposes of actual management the city’s administrative work is divided
into five general departments (public works, public welfare, public
finance, public safety, and public health, or some other such division)
and one of the commissioners takes immediate charge of each. The final
authority in all matters, however, remains with the commission as a
whole.
[Sidenote: Advantages of the commission system.]
=Its Merits and Defects.=—The outstanding feature of this scheme is that
it lodges all power and responsibility in one place. There is no
division of authority, no checks and balances, no complicated network of
officials, boards, councils, and committees. The commission meets every
day; does its business publicly; takes full responsibility for its
actions, and when it makes decisions sees that they are promptly carried
out. The plan is so simple that any citizen can understand it. It is
truly democratic in that the voters are enabled to enforce
responsibility when taxes are too heavy or public funds are wasted. The
commission plan tends to bring better men into office and affords them
greater opportunities for the exercise of their abilities.
[Sidenote: Reputed defects of commission government.]
The objection is made that the commission plan, by giving so much
authority to a few men, may prove to be dangerous and result in
establishing an oligarchy. But the commissioners, like mayors and
councils, are chosen by the people and cannot remain long in office
unless the people re-elect them. Moreover, most cities that use the
commission plan have established the initiative, referendum, and recall
(see p. 107) as additional safeguards.
And so it is with the complaint that a commission of five members is not
large enough to be representative of all classes among the people. Good
representation is not merely a matter of numbers. Large bodies, in fact,
can be easily handled by bosses. Congress with more than five hundred
members has sometimes failed to reflect public opinion; the President on
occasions has done this much better. Five men can find out what the
people want just as well as fifty, and they are more likely to try.
Quite as much to the point—they are in a better position to carry out
the people’s wishes when the time comes.
[Sidenote: The most serious fault.]
There is one serious defect in the commission plan, however, and it is
this: The control of the various city departments is not brought to a
single center but is parceled out into five separate hands. Each
commissioner looks after a certain portion of the city’s business; no
one is supreme over them all. The commission as a whole is supreme, it
is true, but it must trust its own individual members to handle their
own branches of work. In other words, the commission plan establishes a
five-headed executive; it leaves room for disagreements among the
commissioners on a three-against-two basis, and does not make some one
man responsible for getting a dollar’s worth of value for every hundred
cents expended. Dividing the responsibility among five men is better, of
course, than dividing it among fifty or sixty, as the mayor-and-council
plan does; but putting it all upon the shoulders of one man is more
effective still.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE CITY-MANAGER PLAN
The diagram which is printed on the reverse of
this page will make clear the analogy between the
organization of a business corporation and that of a
city in which the city-manager plan of government is
followed. The people of the city correspond to the
stockholders of the corporation in that they possess
the ultimate power. This power is exercised in the
one case through a board of directors, in the other
through a council or commission. Administrative
authority, however, in both cases devolves upon a
manager, who, in turn, appoints and removes his
subordinates. All the activities of corporate
business and of city-manager government are linked
together or correlated at a single administrative
center.
This diagram should be studied in connection with
the discussion on pages 203-206.
A COMPARISON
THE FACTORY THE CITY
STOCKHOLDERS PEOPLE
Vote Initiative, Referendum,
Recall, Protest
DIRECTORS \ / COMMISSIONERS
—Popular control—
GENERAL ——Centralized authority—— CITY
MANAGER MANAGER
Appoints Appoints
and discharges Correlated activities and discharges
Department heads —— Department heads
/ \
ENGINEERING LAW
MAKING PUBLIC SERVICES
RECORDING PUBLIC WELFARE
SELLING PUBLIC SAFETY
WELFARE FINANCE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Sidenote: Position and powers of the manager.]
=The City-Manager Plan.=—In keeping with the principle, therefore, that
some one official ought to have direct charge of the city’s
administrative work, the city-manager plan has been devised. Under this
plan the commission (or a small elective council) continues in full
control, but its members do not divide the various functions among
themselves. Instead they appoint a well-paid, expert official to act as
general manager and he takes charge of all the city departments. The
city administration, under this arrangement, is conducted like that of
any ordinary business corporation. The commission or council serves as a
board of directors; the city manager becomes, as it were, a general
superintendent.[76] In selecting its manager a city often goes outside
its own limits; usually it chooses a man who is an engineer by
profession because so much of the work is of a technical nature. When
the manager is appointed he plans the work to be done, estimates the
cost, awards the contracts, purchases the materials, and hires the
labor. The city-manager plan has been adopted by more than a hundred
cities, but only a few are large communities.[77]
[Sidenote: Merits of the plan.]
This scheme of city government has all the advantages of the commission
plan and some of its defects. The detailed work falls on the city
manager who is qualified to do it. There is a single, responsible head
of the administration. When a citizen has any complaint to make, he
knows exactly where to go. In all these respects it is an ideal
arrangement. [Sidenote: Two practical questions.] But there are two
practical questions connected with the plan which only the future can
answer. [Sidenote: 1. Will the cities pay adequate salaries?] In the
first place will cities be willing to pay the high salaries which they
must pay in order to obtain the services of thoroughly competent
managers? Men who are capable of handling the affairs of a great
corporation, which a city is, cannot be secured without paying them the
market price for their skill and experience. Private corporations pay
high salaries to their general managers, and the cities, if they want
the right men, must do likewise. But public opinion in most American
cities is inclined to balk at high salaries. People who have to work
hard for their own living do not see why anyone should get a salary of
eight or ten thousand dollars a year from the city, and particularly
they do not see why such a large salary should go to an outsider. In
consequence many cities are striving to get good managers at low
salaries, which is a very difficult if not an impossible thing to do.
The sentiment which strongly favors appointing a “local man” as city
manager is also likely to work harmfully. Local appointments in the long
run are almost certain to be influenced by local politics.
[Sidenote: 2. Is the plan applicable to very large cities?]
A second limitation concerns the applicability of the city-manager plan
to very large communities. A competent official can take charge of the
entire administration in a place of fifty or one hundred thousand
people. But how about a city of a million? Would the task be too big?
This is a question which cannot yet be answered, because no very large
city has yet tried the plan. It is pointed out that giant business
enterprises, with operations extending into many countries, are
sometimes managed by one capable man who ensures success by a careful
selection of his subordinates. Until the experiment is made we are not
safe in assuming that the city-manager scheme can be advantageously
adopted by all communities of whatever size.
=The Future of City Government.=—What the final solution of the problem
will be we cannot yet tell. The new plans of city government which have
been described in the foregoing pages may be merely a prelude to
something still newer. But at any rate the cities are making headway.
They are simplifying their governments, making them more responsive to
public opinion and better fitted to do the work which has to be done.
American city government is no longer a conspicuous failure.
Misgovernment and waste have not wholly or even largely disappeared, it
is true; but conditions are far better today than they were twenty-five
years ago. The people have awakened; they are no longer misled by
promises and excuses but are insisting upon knowing the facts. The
crooked methods of a generation ago would not be tolerated today. The
present task is to hold what we have thus gained and add to it. That is
a duty which belongs to every citizen whatever his age, occupation, or
party allegiance. The world is becoming a world of cities, and he who
helps to make his home city a better place is performing one of the
highest duties of patriotism.
General References
F. J. GOODNOW and F. G. BATES, _Municipal Government_, pp. 3-43;
W. B. MUNRO, _The Government of American Cities_, pp. 80-101;
C. A. BEARD, _American Government and Politics_, pp. 578-602; _Ibid._,
_Readings in American Government and Politics_, pp. 509-534;
H. G. JAMES, _Local Government in the United States_, pp. 300-357;
T. S. CHANG, _History and Analysis of the Commission and City Manager
Plans of Municipal Government_, pp. 75-96;
HENRY BRUÈRE, _The New City Government_, pp. 171-204;
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE, _Commission Government
and the City-Manager Plans_, revised edition, pp. 49-77;
EVERETT KIMBALL, _State and Municipal Government_, pp. 345-453.
Group Problems
=1. The charter of your own city= (or some nearby city). Study the main
types of city charter. Examine the procedure by which your city charter
was adopted; make a summary of its chief provisions; compare these with
the main provisions in the charter of some other comparable city; point
out what seem to be the chief merits and defects; state your conclusions
as to desirable changes, and explain how these may be secured.
=References=: NATHAN MATTHEWS, _Municipal Charters_, pp. 97-163; H. G.
JAMES, _Applied City Government_, pp. 39-53; H. A. TOULMIN, _The City
Manager_, pp. 170-193; NATIONAL MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, _Municipal Program_
(ed. C. R. Woodruff), _passim_. (Copies of the city charter can always
be found in the public library and in all but the larger cities may
usually be had from the office of the city clerk.)
=2. The city-manager plan: what are its merits and its limitations?=
=References=: H. A. TOULMIN, _The City Manager_, pp. 73-97; C. E.
RIGHTOR, _The City Manager in Dayton_, pp. 31-56; E. C. MABIE, _Selected
Articles on the City Manager Plan of Municipal Government_, _passim_
(Debaters’ Handbook series); T. S. CHANG, _History and Analysis of the
Commission and City Manager Plans of Municipal Government_, pp. 158-220;
NATIONAL MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, _The Story of the City Manager Plan_
(pamphlet); The Year Book of the City Managers’ Association and the
National Municipal Review also contain recent material.
Short Studies
1. =Characteristics of city populations.= W. B. MUNRO, _The Government
of American Cities_, pp. 29-52.
2. =The city and the state.= C. A. BEARD, _American City Government_,
pp. 31-51.
3. =The city charter.= H. G. JAMES, _Local Government in the United
States_, pp. 304-311.
4. =The position and powers of the mayor.= W. B. MUNRO, _The Government
of American Cities_, pp. 207-237; R. M. STORY, _The American Municipal
Executive_, _passim_.
5. =The mayor as a human being.= BRAND WHITLOCK, _Forty Years of It_,
especially pp. 205-236.
6. =The most striking mayor of his day.= TOM L. JOHNSON, _My Story_, pp.
108-143; CARL LORENZ, _Tom L. Johnson_, pp. 21-66.
7. =The city council.= F. J. GOODNOW and F. G. BATES, _Municipal
Government_, pp. 179-229.
8. =Parties and politics in city government.= W. B. MUNRO, _The
Government of American Cities_, pp. 153-179.
9. =The selection and training of city administrators.= HENRY BRUÈRE,
_The New City Government_, pp. 335-361.
10. =How our cities have improved during the past twenty years.= W. B.
MUNRO, _Principles and Methods of Municipal Administration_, pp. 1-29.
Questions
1. If you compare a city of 100,000 people with a rural district of the
same population, which would have (_a_) the larger income per capita;
(_b_) the larger proportion of property owners; (_c_) the greater number
of illiterates; (_d_) the greater number of criminals? Give reasons for
your answer in each case.
2. Compare a city charter with a state constitution, pointing out
wherein they are similar and wherein they are different.
3. Name some branches of administration which you think ought to be
wholly under the jurisdiction of the city and free from state
interference.
4. Which do you think is the better, municipal home rule or the optional
charter plan? Why do you think so?
5. In mayor-and-council cities what are the principal powers and duties
of the mayor? What are the chief functions of the city council?
6. State which of the following officials ought to be appointed by the
mayor and which of them elected by the people, giving your reasons in
each case: superintendent of streets, chief or commissioner of police,
head of the fire department, city treasurer, overseers of the poor,
members of the school board, public library trustees.
7. “A city’s affairs are of the nature of business, not of government.”
Is this statement absolutely correct? Why or why not?
8. “The commission plan embodied both a protest and a policy.” Against
what was it a protest? To what extent does it avoid the defects of the
mayor-and-council plan?
9. What are the practical difficulties connected with the city-manager
plan? Do you believe that preference should be given to a “local man” in
choosing the manager? The salary of the mayor in a medium-sized city is
usually not more than $5000. Should a city manager be paid more?
10. Explain what training and personal qualities a city manager ought to
have.
Topics for Debate
1. The head of the police department in large cities (over 100,000
population) should be appointed by the governor.
2. The city-manager plan is better than the mayor-and-council or
commission form of government for cities under 100,000 population.
3. Home rule should be granted to cities in every state.
4. The members of the city council should be chosen from the city at
large rather than from wards.