MRSC Inquiries

Government Organization

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

Government Organization - Classification of Government



1. 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).

   
   
   
2. 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. The most common method for the adoption of the OMC 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 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, known as the Optional Municipal Code.

   
   
   
3. How many cities are operating under each of the classifications of government?
   

   Currently there are 10 first class cities, 11 second class cities, 72 towns, and 187 code cities. Waitsburg is the only unclassified city and operates under a territorial charter.

   
   
   
4. 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.

   
   
   

Government Organization - Commission Form



1. 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.

   
   
   
2. What are some of the arguments for and against the commission form of government?
   

   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 or a city manager in a council-manager 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.)

   
   
   

Government Organization - Council-Manager Form



1. 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 selected by the city council from among its members. The charter of an optional municipal code city or first class city may provide for the mayor to 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.

   
   
   
2. 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.

   A city manager may leave a city when offered a higher salary and greater responsibility in another city.

   (*Note: These "arguments" have been collected from a variety of sources and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of MRSC or MRSC Staff.)

   
   
   

Government Organization - County Home Rule



1. 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:

   • "Home Rule" Charter Form of Government
   • County Home Rule Charters
   • County Charter Adoption Process
   
   
   

Government Organization - Flag Display



1. Request for information on the law requiring display of POW/MIA flags on certain days.
   

   RCW 1.20.017 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.

   
   
   
2. 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.

   
   
   

Government Organization - Forms of Government



1. 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.

   
   
   
2. How many cities are operating under the various forms of government?
   

   Currently, of Washington's 281 cities and towns, 226 (80%) operate under the mayor-council form, 54 (19%) 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 226 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, 43 out of 54, fall within the 5,000 to 100,000 population range. Shelton (pop. 8,545) is the only remaining commission city in the state.

   
   
   
3. 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

   
   
   

Government Organization - Mayor-Council Form



1. 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 large number of mayor-council cities have added a 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 2009 Salary & Benefit Survey the following cities have established city or town administrator positions:

   Cities 50,000 and over:

   • Bellingham Chief Administrative Officer
   • Everett Chief Administrative Assistant
   • Kent Chief Administrative Assistant
   • Renton Chief Administrative Officer
   • Spokane City Administrator

   Cities 30,000 - 49,999:

   • Marysville Chief Administrative Officer

   Cities 15,000 - 29,999:

   • Arlington City Administrator
   • Bonney Lake City Administrator
   • Camas City Administrator
   • Issaquah City Administrator
   • Monroe City Administrator
   • Mukilteo City Administrator
   • Oak Harbor City Administrator
   • Pullman City Supervisor
   • Tukwila City Administrator
   • Tumwater City Administrator

   Cities 7,500 - 14,999:

   • Burlington City Administrator
   • Cheney City Administrator
   • College Place City Administrator
   • DuPont City Administrator
   • Enumclaw City Administrator
   • Ferndale City Administrator
   • Grandview City Administrator
   • Hoquiam City Administrator
   • Lake Forest Park City Administrator
   • Lake Stevens City Administrator 
   • Lynden City Administrator
   • Shelton City Administrator
   • Snoqualmie City Administrator
   • Sumner City Administrator
   • Washougal City Administrator
   • West Richland City Administrator

   Cities 2,500 - 7,499:

   • Algona City Administrator/Clerk Treasurer
   • Black Diamond City Administrator
   • Buckley City Administrator
   • Chelan City Administrator
   • Clyde Hill City Administrator
   • Colfax City Administrator
   • Connell City Administrator
   • Ephrata City Administrator
   • Gig Harbor City Administrator
   • Goldendale City Administrator/Manager
   • Medical Lake City Administrator
   • Milton City Administrator
   • Moxee City Supervisor/Public Works Supervisor 
   • North Bend City Administrator
   • Omak City Administrator
   • Orting City Administrator
   • Othello City Administrator
   • Prosser City Administrator
   • Quincy City Administrator
   • Selah City Supervisor
   • Stanwood City Administrator
   • Steilacoom Town Administrator
   • Sultan City Administrator
   • Warden City Administrator
   • Yelm Chief Administrative Officer

   Cities 1,500 - 2,499:

   • Bridgeport Administrator
   • Chewelah City Administrator
   • Cle Elum Administrator
   • Davenport City Administrator
   • Eatonville Town Administrator
   • Friday Harbor Town Administrator
   • Leavenworth City Administrator
   • Newport City Administrator
   • McCleary City Administrator/Public Works Director
   • Newport City Administrator
   • South Bend City Supervisor
   • Westport City Administrator

   Cities 500 - 1,499:

   • Bingen Administrator
   • La Conner Administrator
   • Naches Administrator
   • Roslyn City Administrator
   • Stevenson City Administrator
   • Woodway Town 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
   • The Unofficial Role of the Administrator - from Public Management, October 2008
   
   
   
2. 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 added a 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.

   
   
   
3. 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.

   In most cities the mayor is vested with the veto power, and can serve as a check on an unpopular council decision.

   A professional administrator can be hired to assist the mayor in the management of the city's operations therby freeing the mayor to concentrate on political leadership or to minimize weaknesses in the mayor's management background or experience, but the mayor is still ultimately responsible.

   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.)

   
   
   
4. 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.

   
   
   
5. 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, December 2009
   • "The Job of the Councilmember" - From Councilmember's Handbook, MRSC Report No. 48, December 2009

   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 2007. 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, Report No. 37 Revised, June 2009 ( 505kb) 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.
   
   
   

Government Organization - Mission and Goals



1. Request for sample mission statements from other cities.
   

   City of Bellevue: Provide exceptional customer service, uphold the public interest and advance the Community Vision.

   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: We enrich the community by providing leadership and services reflecting 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: The City of Federal Way ir responsive, innovative and fiscally responsible in delivering quality services, promoting economic development, improving infrastructure and managing growth. 

   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 City of Lynnwood will be a regional model for a sustainable, vibrant community with engaged citizens and an accountable government.

   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:

   
   Providing a healthy atmosphere to live and raise families
   Encouraging responsible growth and economic vitality
   Creating a positive community work environment
   Meeting service demands through innovation

   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: To foster leadership, stewardship and responsive services and community partnerships.

   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: To provide outstanding services that meet the community's needs.

   To govern responsibly by effectively managing and protecting public resources.

   To build trust in government through openness, diverse leadership and communication.

   To strategically focus on enhancing Yakima's quality of life.