MRSC Inquiries

Government Organization

Contents:

County Home Rule
Classification of Government
Flag Display
Forms of Government
Mayor-Council Form
Mission and Goals
Council-Manager Form
Commission Form

County Home Rule

If a county becomes a home rule county may all of the elected officials become appointed except the prosecutor and the judges?
Yes. Art. XI, sec. 4 of the state constitution (paragraph 3) provides:

Any home rule charter proposed as herein provided, may provide for such county officers as may be deemed necessary to carry out and perform all county functions as provided by charter or by general law, and for their compensation, but shall not affect the election of the prosecuting attorney, the county superintendent of schools, the judges of the superior court, and the justices of the peace, or the jurisdiction of the courts.

For more information on home rule counties see:

Classification of Government

How are municipal governments classified?
There are four classes of municipal government in Washington: first and second class cities, towns and the optional municipal code classification. Cities and towns are classified according to their population at the time of incorporation or reorganization. First class cities have populations over 10,000; second class cities have populations over 1,500, and towns have populations less that 1,500. An additional classification, known as the optional municipal code, was devised in 1967 as an alternative to the existing classification system and provides cities that adopt the code with broad statutory home rule authority. The optional municipal code classification is available to any city or town without regard to population. While all cities and towns possess the same basic authority to perform general governmental functions, there are several important differences depending both upon the size of the city and its classification. For example, the laws that regulate purchasing by cities and towns and which require competitive bidding, establish different requirements depending upon a city's population and classification.
The 1994 legislature made some significant changes to the state laws governing incorporations. As a result of these changes the minimum population now required to incorporate as a city is 1,500. Since a new city cannot be formed unless it has at least 1,500 inhabitants, incorporation as a town is no longer an option (i.e., new cities must incorporate as either first or second class cities, or as optional municipal code cities).
What is the procedure for an incorporated municipality to become a noncharter code city?
The procedures for an incorporated municipality to become a noncharter code city are set forth in Ch. 35A.02 RCW. We will briefly outline the most common method for the adoption of the OMC which is the "resolution method" provided for in RCW 35A.02.030.
Under the resolution method, the city or town council initiates the process when a majority of the council enacts a resolution of intention to adopt for the city or town the classification of noncharter code city, governed by the provisions of the optional municipal code. The resolution should be preceded by a finding that this reclassification would serve the best interests and general welfare of the municipality.
The resolution of intention must then be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the city or town within 10 days. Then a 90-day waiting period must elapse during which time a referendum petition may be filed by the qualified electors of the city or town in order to cause the resolution of intention to be referred to the voters for approval or disapproval. If no referendum petition is filed within 90 days of the publication of the resolution of intention, the council may by ordinance adopt for the city the classification of noncharter code city.
The clerk must then file a certified copy of the ordinance adopting the classification of noncharter code city with the Office of the Secretary of State. The city or town is then reclassified as a noncharter code city and is governed by Title 35A RCW, the Optional Municipal Code.
How many cities are operating under each of the classifications of government?
Currently there are 10 first class cities, 16 second class cities, 75 towns, and 179 code cities. Waitsburg is the only unclassified city and operates under a territorial charter.
Where are the powers and duties of the different classifications of government set out?
The powers and duties of first class cities, second class cities and towns are set forth in Title 35 of the Revised Code of Washington. The powers and duties of optional municipal code cities are set forth in Title 35A of the Revised Code of Washington.

Flag Display

Request for information on the new legislation requiring display of POW/MIA flags on certain days.
Chapter 293, Laws of 2002 (SSB 5097) requires the state and every county, city, and town to display the National League of Families' POW/MIA flag along with the state and national flags "upon or near its principal buildings" on specific days: Armed Forces Day, Memorial Day, Flag Day, Independence Day, National POW/MIA Recognition Day, and Veterans' Day.

Information about purchasing and displaying the flag is to be provided by the Governor's Veterans' Affairs Advisory Committee.
Request for information on flag display protocol.

A good description of protocols for displaying various flags may be found on the Washington Secretary of State's Web page - "Display with the U.S. and Other Flags."

The Secretary of State's Office also has a Web page with general information on the Washington State flag, information about displaying the POW/MIA flag, and information about U.S. Laws governing the display of the Stars and Stripes.

The American Legion's Web site has a copy of the "U.S. Flag Code," Title 4, United States Code, Chapter 1, as well as a set of frequently asked questions. This code has been interpreted by the courts as being rules of protocol that are an expression of prevailing custom rather than laws requiring compliance.

Forms of Government

Is there a statutory limit on how soon a code city may vote on whether to change the form of government after a failed attempt?
No. There is no specific statute that limits how soon this type of issue could be voted upon again. There is such a limitation for votes after a failed incorporation election. See RCW 35.02.078. However, this has no application to a vote to change the form of government.

However, the statutes were amended in 2004 to provide that this type of vote may only be held at general elections, and not at special election dates. See RCW 35A.06.050.
How many cities are operating under the various forms of government?
Currently, of Washington's 281 cities and towns, 227 (81%) operate under the mayor-council form, 53 (18%) have adopted the council-manager form, and 1 (<1%) operate under the commission form.
The great majority of Washington's 281 municipalities are small mayor-council cities and towns. Of the 227 mayor-council municipalities in the state, 179 have populations of under 5,000, including 84 small mayor- council towns that have fewer than 1,000 residents. Some of the state's largest cities, having populations greater than 25,000, also operate under the mayor-council form, including the city of Seattle, with over 500,000 residents. Most council-manager cities, 42 out of 53, fall within the 5,000 to 100,000 population range. Shelton (pop. 8,545) is the only remaining commission city in the state.
RFI pros and cons of mayor-council and council-manager forms of government
See the following resources on our Web site:

MRSC's Forms of Government Web page
Forms of Government Overview
Comparing/Contrasting the Mayor-Council and Council-Manager Forms of Government - A Brief Comparison of Key Characteristics of Mayor-Council and Council-Manager Forms
"Trends in Forms of Government in Washington Cities," Byron Katsuyama, Public Policy Consultant, Municipal Research News, MRSC, December 1991
Washington Cities Incorporating Under, Adopting or Abandoning the Mayor-Council, Council-Manager and Commission Forms of Government from 1970 to 2003 - MRSC, August 2003
Selected MRSC Library Holdings - Forms of Government

Mayor-Council Form

Which cities have a mayor and a city administrator?

First, it is important to note that the term "city or town administrator" is not universal. The essential functions of such a person might also fall under the following titles:
- Administrative Assistant
- Administrative Assistant to the Mayor
- City Administrator
- City Superintendent
- City Supervisor
- Executive Assistant
- Executive Assistant to the Mayor
- Operations Director/Chief of Staff
- Town Administrator
A growing number of mayor-council cities have begun adding a new professional position of city administrator or chief administrative officer (CAO) in the mayor's office. CAO's serve under the mayor and assist with the mayor's administrative and policy-related responsibilities. In theory, the appointment of a CAO frees the mayor from the need to attend to administrative details and allows the mayor to focus greater attention on policy development and political leadership roles.

According to the AWC 2003 Salary & Benefit Survey the following cities have established city or town administrator positions:

Cities 50,000 and over:
- Everett Chief Administrative Assistant
- Kent Chief Administrative Assistant
- Renton Chief Administrative Officer
- Spokane City Administrator
Cities 30,000 - 49,999:
- None
Cities 15,000 - 29,999:
- Bainbridge Island City Administrator
- Issaquah City Administrator
- Marysville Chief Administrative Officer
- Monroe City Administrator
- Mukilteo City Administrator
- Oak Harbor City Administrator
- Pullman City Supervisor
- Tukwila City Administrator
Cities 7,500 - 14,999:
- Arlington City Administrator
- Camas City Administrator
- Cheney City Administrator
- College Place City Administrator
- Enumclaw City Administrator
- Ferndale City Administrator
- Grandview City Administrator
- Lake Forest Park City Administrator
- Lynden City Administrator
- Shelton City Administrator
- Sumner City Administrator
- Tumwater City Administrator
- Washougal City Administrator
Cities 2,500 - 7,499:
- Black Diamond City Administrator
- Buckley City Administrator
- Burlington City Administrator
- Cashmere City Administrator
- Chelan City Administrator
- Clyde Hill City Administrator
- Colfax City Administrator
- Connell City Administrator
- DuPont City Administrator
- Duvall City Hall Administrator/Planning Director
- Ephrata City Administrator
- Gig Harbor City Administrator
- Goldendale City Administrator/Manager
- Lake Stevens City Administrator
- Liberty Lake City Administrator
- Medical Lake City Administrator
- North Bend City Administrator
- Orting City Administrator
- Othello City Administrator
- Prosser City Administrator
- Selah City Supervisor
- Snoqualmie City Administrator
- Steilacoom Town Administrator
- Warden City Administrator
- Yelm Chief Administrative Officer
Cities 1,500 - 2,499:
- Chewelah City Administrator
- Cle Elum Administrator
- Everson City Administrator
- Friday Harbor Town Administrator
- Leavenworth City Administrator
- Newport City Administrator
- South Bend City Supervisor
- Westport City Administrator
Cities 500 - 1,499:
- La Conner Administrator
- Langley City Administrator
- Long Beach City Administrator
- McCleary City Administrator/Public Works Director
- Moxee City Supervisor
- Naches Administrator
- Reardan City Manager/Administrator
- Stevenson City Administrator
- Sumas City Administrator
For more information on city administrator positions, see:
- Creating the City Administrator Position
- "Trends in Forms of Government in Washington Cities," Byron Katsuyama, Public Policy Consultant, Municipal Research News, MRSC, December 1991
What are the major characteristics of the mayor-council form of government?
The mayor-council form consists of an elected mayor (elected at-large), who serves as the city's chief administrative officer, and a council (elected either at-large or from districts), which serves as the municipality's legislative body. The council has the authority to formulate and adopt city policies and the mayor is responsible for carrying them out. The mayor attends and presides over council meetings but does not vote, except in the case of a tie. In code cities, the mayor may veto ordinances; although the veto may be overridden by a majority plus one of the entire council membership. In second class cities, the mayor may veto an ordinance, but the mayor&s veto can be overriden by five members of the council. In first class cities the mayor's veto power is specified in the charter. Town mayor&s have no veto power.
A growing number of mayor-council cities have begun adding a new professional position of city administrator or chief administrative officer (CAO) in the mayor's office. CAO's serve under the mayor and assist with the mayor's administrative and policy-related responsibilities. In theory, the appointment of a CAO frees the mayor from the need to attend to administrative details and allows the mayor to focus greater attention on policy development and political leadership roles.
What are some of the arguments for and against the mayor-council form of government?*

Arguments For the Mayor-Council Form
This is the form that is familiar to most Americans because it is patterned after our traditional national and state governments. There is a separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. There are checks and balances.
Also separation of powers provides healthy independence, debate and creative tension. Separate legislative and executive branches provide the best opportunity for debate and consensus building.
By electing, rather than appointing a mayor, political leadership is established. The city has a political spokesperson who has a high degree of visibility.
Some argue that an elected mayor will have a higher standing and greater voice in regional affairs of the city.
The mayor is vested with the veto power, and can serve as a check on an unpopular council decision.
A skilled administrator can be hired to minimize weaknesses in the mayor's management background or experience, but the mayor is still fully responsible. (This refers to the appointment of a CAO and the addition of professional expertise to the mayor's office)
Arguments Against the Mayor-Council Form
The office of the mayor gives too much power and authority to one person. It permits an incumbent to make decisions based largely on political considerations, and to use the office to further personal political objectives.
The qualities needed to win an election are not the same qualities needed to manage a modern city. A mayor while politically astute may not always possess the necessary management training and experience.
If an elected mayor proves to be incompetent or worse, he/she cannot be removed until the end of their term, or after an expensive and divisive recall election.
A separately elected mayor may resist requests from the council. The mayor may attempt to isolate the council by controlling staff, information, and reports.
(*Note: These "arguments" have been collected from a variety of sources and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of MRSC or MRSC Staff.)
Can a mayor-council noncharter code city establish a "legislative department" and create staff positions with employees who work for the council?
MRSC has consistently advised that a noncharter code city can establish legislative staff positions involving employees who will provide assistance to the city council, however, the authority to appoint and remove the person holding the position would remain with the mayor. A similar analysis appears to apply to a mayor-council noncharter code city.
RCW 35A.11.020 and RCW 35A.12.020 give the city council in a mayor-council code city broad authority to organize the council's internal affairs and to define the functions, authority, duties, and qualifications of city officers and employees. Under this authority, a city council could create a city "legislative department" and provide for council staff positions whose responsibilities were to provide research and assistance to city council members in performing their legislative functions. Although the city council could provide that such legislative staff members work under the direction of the elected council members, the authority to appoint and remove the person would still remain with the mayor under RCW 35A.12.090.
Even if the city council requires that persons appointed or hired for the position of council legislative staff be confirmed by the council, the authority to remove the person would still rest with the mayor and would not be subject to council review.
It does not appear possible for the council in a noncharter code city to provide for legislative staff positions that are subject to appointment and removal by the council members rather than the mayor. The only method for creating a form of government in which legislative staff members were appointed by the city council would be to adopt a charter under chapter 35A.08 RCW.

How many cities and towns in Washington have created a city or town administrator position?

First, it is important to note that the term "city or town administrator" is not universal. The essential functions of such a person might also fall under the following titles:

A growing number of mayor-council cities have begun adding a new professional position of city administrator or chief administrative officer (CAO) in the mayor's office. CAO's serve under the mayor and assist with the mayor's administrative and policy-related responsibilities. In theory, the appointment of a CAO frees the mayor from the need to attend to administrative details and allows the mayor to focus greater attention on policy development and political leadership roles.

The 1998-99 Directory of Washington City & Town Officials was consulted. In some situations there is a question as to whether the position is actually that of a city or town administrator, or a position with a much more limited role such as a street or utilities supervisor. In those cases, the city or town's ordinance was examined to determine whether the position indeed fit the proper category.

There are 81 cities or towns with a city or town administrator or equivalent. They are:

Airway Heights	Gig Harbor	Port Townsend
Arlington	Goldendale	Prosser
Bainbridge Island	Grandview	Pullman
Bellingham	Hunt Point	Quincy
Black Diamond	Issaquah	Raymond
Bonney Lake	Kent	Redmond
Brewster	La Conner	Renton
Buckley	Lake Forest Park	Rosalia
Camas	Lake Stevens	Sedro-Woolley
Carnation	Leavenworth	Selah
Chelan	Long Beach	Shelton
Cheney	Lynden	Soap Lake
Chewelah	Lynnwood	South Bend
Clyde Hill	Mabton	Stanwood
Colfax	Marysville	Steilacoom
College Place	Medical Lake	Stevenson
Connell	Monroe	Sultan
Coupeville	Mukilteo	Sumas
Dayton	Newport	Sumner
Dupont	North Bend	Tukwila
East Wenatchee	Oak Harbor	Tumwater
Elma	Orting	Union Gap
Enumclaw	Othello	Warden
Friday Harbor	Pacific	Wenatchee
George	Pateros West	Richland
		Westport
		Winlock
		Woodway
		Yelm
		Zillah

Request for information on the roles and responsibilities of local government executive and legislative officials.

See the following resources on MRSC's Web site:
- "Roles and Responsibilities"
- "Making Policy is Job #1 for Legislators"
- "Is it Policy or Administration?"
- "The Policy-Making Process"
- "Knowing Your Roles: Resolving and Preventing Conflicts between Mayors and Councils"
- "Welcome to City Hall! You Won. Congratulations! Now What?" By Ron Bartels, Public Policy and Management Consultant, Municipal Research & Services Center, Municipal Research News, Winter 2001
- "Resolving and Preventing Mayor-Council Conflict" - From Councilmember's Handbook, MRSC Report No. 48, January 2000
- "The Job of the Councilmember" - From Councilmember's Handbook, MRSC Report No. 48, January 2000
You may also be interested in the following MRSC publications:
- Local Government Policy-Making Process (513 KB), MRSC Report No. 45, February 1999. This publication describes the local government policy-making process, outlines effective roles for local officials, and to provide practical tips to make the local policy-making process more satisfying and productive.
- Knowing the Territory (337 KB), MRSC Report No. 47, November 1999. Describes the nature, powers and duties of municipal officials for "keeping out of trouble," discusses limitations, regulations, and admonitions regarding the exercise of governmental powers, including conflicts of interest law, the open public meetings act, appearance of fairness doctrine and similar laws. It also points out immunities and protections.
- Code City Handbook (948 KB), MRSC Report No. 37, March 1997. Provides essential information for code city officials and incites their powers, duties, and alternatives that are available under the applicable forms of municipal government.
- Councilmember's Handbook (691 KB), MRSC Report No. 48, January 2000. A brief overview of the structure of municipal government in Washington State and the role of the councilmember in that structure.

Mission and Goals

Request for sample mission statements from other cities.
City of Bellevue: Through accessible, proactive leadership and governance, provide high-quality services and facilities that meet the needs of the community.
City of Camas: The city of Camas commits to preserving its heritage, sustaining and enhancing a high quality of life for all its citizens and developing the community to meet the challenges of the future. We take pride in preserving a healthful environment while promoting economic growth. We encourage citizens to participate in government and community, assisting the city in its efforts to provide quality of services consistent with their desires and needs.
City of Chelan: The City of Chelan is a partnership of its people, personnel and elected representatives working together to protect and serve in order to allow all to live in harmony while enjoying a quality way of life. The city recognizes that these accomplishments will be through creative leadership, motivated and dedicated personnel and community participation in its government.
City of Cheney: The Mission of the City of Cheney is to responsibly provide its citizens desirable services while promoting and optimizing the finest quality of life.
City of Des Moines: To enrich residential living by providing leadership, administration and community services that reflect the pride and values of Des Moines.
City of Enumclaw: The City of Enumclaw through the Mayor, City Council, and City employees will provide municipal services to our citizens in an effective and responsible manner which preserves the community's well-being, respects the dignity of our citizens, and promotes excellence in public service.
City of Federal Way: It is the mission of the government of the City of Federal Way to seek to achieve the purpose of the people of Federal Way, as declared at the time of the city's incorporation, February 28, 1990: To take upon ourselves the governing of our own destiny; To create a more habitable living environment to enhance both our work and recreation; To maintain our many local governing bodies as small, locally based, and accessible; To ensure that the special needs of Federal Way are addressed in a responsive and responsible manner.
City of Kenmore: With integrity as its cornerstone, Kenmore is a city that will meet its obligations by providing: Effective and efficient services Public safety Forum for citizen participation and involvement A community-generated plan for the future Fair-friendly services responsive to the diverse needs of the citizen Representation of Kenmore's interests in local and regional partnerships ...leaving a sustainable legacy.
City of Kent: Our mission is to enhance the quality of community life for those residing, doing business, and visiting in Kent. Kent CARES about honest and effective government service; protection of life and property; and ensuring that the city provides professional services to the citizens of Kent.
City of Lacey: Our mission is to enrich the quality of life in Lacey for all our citizens . . . to build an attractive, inviting, culturally diverse and secure community. We pledge to work in partnership with our residents to foster community pride, to develop a vibrant, diversified economy, to plan for the future, and to preserve and enhance the natural beauty of our environment.
City of Lynnwood: The purpose of the City of Lynnwood is to provide a variety of services in the most efficient and effective manner to meet the needs of the community and the quality of life for present and future citizens. To do so requires community based leadership, a strong economic base, a professional and able staff, quality community experiences, and a respect and protection of neighborhood and family environments.
City of Olympia: To improve the quality of life and to enhance the spirit of the community through personalized services, citizen involvement, planning for the future and a commitment to timely action.
City of Port Angeles: The purpose of the City of Port Angeles is to provide the citizens of Port Angeles with a variety of services in the most efficient and effective manner possible.
City of Poulsbo: Our city is committed to managing the public resources to promote community health, safety and welfare and plan for the future to accommodate growth, without burden, while preserving our natural resources and enhancing those qualities that make our community unique and desirable.
City of Puyallup: The mission of the City of Puyallup and employees is to . . . Earn the public trust and deliver quality municipal services for people who live in, work in and visit the growing urban area defined as the City of Puyallup, Washington.
City of Renton: The City of Renton, in partnership with residents and businesses is dedicated to:
City of Tacoma: Working in partnership with our community to solve problems, we will provide innovative and cost effective municipal services of the highest quality to enhance the lives of our citizens and the vitality of our neighborhoods and business districts through teamwork, integrity and continuous improvement.
City of Vancouver: The City of Vancouver is dedicated to creative leadership, responsive service and civic partnership.
City of Woodinville: As the elected representatives of Woodinville, the City Council understands that the purpose of the City is to fairly and equitably represent the interests of the citizens of Woodinville, and to carry out its lawful duties on behalf of citizens of Woodinville.
Council, staff, Boards and Commissions honor our commitment to serve the Woodinville community by:
Providing customer service that is:
Efficient - Personalized - Consistent - Responsive -Educational
Encouraging partnerships with:
Citizens - Neighborhoods - Business communities - Educational and social networks
Protecting and enhancing:
Quality of life - public health, safety and welfare - natural and built environment - spirit of neighborhood character
Balancing: Public expectations and resources - Economic well-being and environmental protection - individual and community interests
City of Yakima: The mission of the City of Yakima is to provide superior services and public facilities for the people, businesses and institutions within the city boundaries, or where appropriate to provide urban services, in order to enhance the quality of life and economic environment, within the community's willingness and ability to pay.

Council-Manager Form

What are the major characteristics of the council-manager form of government?
The council-manager form consists of an elected city council which is responsible for policy making, and a professional city manager, appointed by the council, who is responsible for administration. The city manager provides policy advice, directs the daily operations of city government, handles personnel functions (including the power to appoint and remove employees) and is responsible for preparation of a budget. Under the council-manager enabling law, the city council is prohibited from interfering with the manager's administration. The city manager, however, is directly accountable to, and can be removed by the council at any time.
The mayor in council-manager cities is generally selected by the city council from among its members. In optional municipal code cities or first class cities, the mayor may be directly elected by the people. The mayor generally presides at council meetings and is recognized as the head of the city for ceremonial purposes, but has no regular administrative duties.
What are some of the arguments for and against the council-manager form of government?*

Arguments For the Council-Manager Form
Administration of city business is removed from politics.
Since city managers are appointed rather than elected, greater attention can be given to selecting a qualified manager. The pool of qualified candidates is larger since city managers traditionally are paid better than mayors and since candidates can be recruited from outside the city including a nationwide search. (Mayors must be a resident of the city prior to their election.)
Since managers are appointed not elected, they are less likely to have political obligations which will affect the quality of their administration.
Emphasis is placed on the role of the legislative body and its policy-making function. Council gets better cooperation and information because the city manager is their employee.
Since manager serves at the pleasure of the council without a definite term, he/she can be removed at any time, limiting the danger of an abuse of authority.
Arguments Against the Council-Manager Form
The council-manager form gives too much power to one person-the city manager.
A professional manager, often chosen from outside the city, does not know the community and is too far from the voters.
Councils may leave too much decision making to the manager, who is not directly accountable to the public.
Without an elected chief executive, the community lacks political leadership.
The council-manager form is too much like a business corporation which is not suitable for managing community needs.
City managers cost too much, local people could handle the job for less cost.
Citizens may be confused about who is in charge. Most expect the mayor to respond to their problems. The mayor has no direct control over the delivery of services and can only change policy through the city council.
City managers have a tendency to leave a city when offered higher salaries and greater responsibilities in other cities.
(*Note: These "arguments" have been collected from a variety of sources and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of MRSC or MRSC Staff.)

Commission Form

What are the major characteristics of the commission form of government?
The commission form provides for the election of three commissioners who function collectively as the city legislative body and individually as city department heads. The three are elected at-large to fill the specific offices of commissioner of public safety (who also serves as the mayor), commissioner of finance and accounting, and commissioner of streets and public improvements (public works). Although one of the elected commissioners also has the title of mayor, he or she has essentially the same powers as the other commissioners, and has no veto power nor any power to direct city administration except within his/her own department. The commission appoints and removes officials by a majority vote.
What are some of the arguments for and against the commission form of government?*
Arguments For the Commission Form
In theory, combining executive and legislative responsibility in one small elected body will result in increased political accountability and a more efficient and responsive government.
The dispersal of executive authority and power provides sufficient separation of powers, and checks and balances, making it unnecessary to have separate legislative and executive branches.
Commissioners as legislators can be sure that their wishes are being carried out since they are administering the policies which they had a part in shaping.
The commission form saves money because the commissioners serve both as legislators and department heads.
Arguments Against the Commission Form
Successful commissioner candidates may turn out to be poor administrators either because they have no interest in it or because they lack the requisite management skills.
The commission form has been criticized for its lack of executive leadership, there being no single individual comparable to the mayor in a mayor-council city who is responsible for the overall administration of city departments.
Giving both legislative and executive powers to the same group of officials conflicts with the fundamental American concept of separation of governmental powers.
Employees may tend to work primarily for their own departments, ignoring the needs of other parts of the government.
(*Note: These "arguments" have been collected from a variety of sources and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of MRSC or MRSC Staff.)