Knowing Your Roles:
Resolving and Preventing Conflicts
Between Mayors and Councils

It is essential for effective local government that municipal officials, particularly mayors, councilmembers, and city managers, understand the roles of their respective offices and their interrelationships with others. Many of the conflicts in city and town governments, as evidenced by the inquiries MRSC receives, are the result of confusion as to these roles and the consequent overstep ping of the boundaries between the respective roles. Although those boundaries may, in some cases, be unclear, there is a basic structure to city and town government, whether of the mayor-council or council-manager form, from which these roles derive.

Though the focus of this article is on the mayor-council form of government, the basic principles apply equally to the council-manager form. There may be some variation in the powers and duties of mayors and councils between classes of cities; you need to be aware of the specific rules applicable to your class of city.

Like the federal and state governments, a city government's powers are distributed among three separate branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. The council is analogous to the state legislature or the Congress; the mayor or manager, like the governor and the President, heads the executive branch; and the municipal court (or the district court by contract) exercises judicial functions, although in a much more limited way than the state or federal courts. Under the "separation of powers doctrine," each of the three branches exercises certain defined powers, free from unreasonable interference by the others; yet all three branches interact with each other as part of a "checks and balances" system. The powers of these branches in city government are defined for the most part by state statute.

The council, being legislative, has the power to enact laws and policies, consistent with state law, regulating local and municipal affairs, usually through the enactment of ordinances and resolutions. In general, the council's authority also includes the specific authority to:

• Enact a city budget.
• Define the powers, functions, and duties of city officers and employees.
• Fix the compensation of officers and employees.
• Establish the working conditions of officers and employees.
• Maintain retirement and pension systems.
• Impose fines and penalties for violation of city ordinances.
• Enter into contracts.
• Regulate the acquisition, sale, ownership, and other disposition of real property.
• Provide governmental, recreational, educational, cultural, and social services.
• Impose taxes, if not prohibited by state law.
• Cause the city to own and operate utilities.
• Approve claims against the city.
• Grant franchises for the use of public ways.
• License, for the purpose of revenue and regulation, most any type of business.

In addition, the council is authorized to enact rules governing its procedures, including for public meetings and hearings.

The mayor is the chief executive and administrative officer of the city in charge of carrying out the policies set by the council and of seeing that local laws are enforced. The mayor, or the manager in the council-manager city, is basically in charge of the day-to-day operation of the city, including the supervision of all appointive officers and employees in the performance of their official functions. The mayor is in charge of hiring and firing all appointive officers and employees, subject, where applicable, to laws regarding civil service. Except for those in towns (fourth class municipalities), councils have some authority to require confirmation of the appointment of certain officials; councils may not, however, require confirmation of firings by the mayor.

In general, the mayor also has the following authority to:

• Enforce contracts.
• Bring lawsuits, with council approval.
• Preside over council meetings and, in some classes of cities, exercise some tie-breaking authority with respect to council votes and veto authority over ordinances.
• Call special meetings of the council.
• Prepare a proposed budget.
• Report to the council on the financial and other affairs and needs of the city.
• Perform as ceremonial head of the city.
• Approve or disapprove all official bonds and contractor's bonds.

Consistent with the separation of powers doctrine, the council is not authorized to interfere with the mayor's administration of city government. Councilmembers may not give orders to department heads or to other city employees. In council-manager cities, this prohibition is established statutorily; thecouncil must deal with the city manager concerning matters of city administration, except that it may deal directly with officers and employees under the manager's direction "for the purpose of inquiry." To do its job, the council needs information on how the city is operating. The mayor or the manager, either directly or through other city officers or employees, must provide that information and should do so in a timely and useful fashion.

Of course, things do not always run smoothly between the council and the city administration, and the line between policy and administration may in some situations be blurred and imprecise. One area that is a frequent source of conflict is personnel. The council may not like a mayor's appointment to a particular position or it may be dissatisfied with the performance of certain officers or employees. An employee may complain to, and seek relief from the council about some aspect of employment. On the other hand, the mayor may believe that certain personnel policies interfere with his or her supervision of employees and hiring and firing authority. The mayor may direct that all communica tions with city staff go through the mayor's office. The council, in response, may feel that the mayor is unlawfully restricting its access to city personnel for information purposes.

The remedy for some of these situations may be to review the respective roles of the mayor and the council and to understand the limitations of their respective authorities. For example, if the council is not happy with a mayoral appointment, there may be nothing the council can do directly within the bounds of its authority. However, if it has the authority to confirm a particular appointment, it can reject the appointee and force the mayor to choose another. If the council does not have confirmation authority, it can express its dissatisfaction to the mayor, but it can do nothing else with respect to that particular appointment. The council may, however, provide for a detailed personnel system establishing specific qualifications for positions, creating affirmative action policies, requiring publication and public posting of job opening announcements, and the like. Moreover, the mayor, at least in code cities, is required by statute to make appointments "on the basis of ability and training or experience."

Similarly, if the council feels that an officer or employee is performing poorly and should be disciplined or fired, it can say so to the mayor, but it has no power to do anything else. Although it controls the salaries paid to city officers and employees, it may not lower a salary so as to cause and with the purpose of causing the person holding that position to quit. A rule to follow is that the council (and the mayor) may not do indirectly what it cannot do directly.

On the issue of communication between the council and city officers and employees, the mayor may not prevent councilmembers from gaining information although he or she could reasonably regulate the inquiry process. If councilmember inquiries of city employees serve to harass those employees or unreasonably take them away from their duties, it may be necessary for the mayor to require those inquiries to be channeled through the mayor's or a department head's office, if that can be done without unduly encumbering council access to information.

Another area that often proves to be fertile ground for germinating conflicts and that may elude easy resolution is that of finances and budgets. For example, the mayor may not take full advantage of the budget authorized by the council. The council may authorize a certain position at a certain salary, and the mayor may decide either not to fill the position or may do so at half time and half salary. Themayor may cite financial exigencies, such as revenues falling short of projections, and may conclude that the city cannot afford someone filling this position full-time. The council, on the other hand, may not agree that the conditions warrant such action or may determine that a different cost-saving measure is appropriate and should be instituted.

Resolution of this type of issue may prove particularly tricky. Although the mayor may not pay an employee less than that authorized by the council in the budget or in a separate salary ordinance, the mayor, under certain financial circumstances, may be able to partially fill a position, proportionately reducing the salary for the position. Legal authority, however, is hazy on such issues. The best strategy would be for the mayor and the council to work out a mutually agreeable accommodation.

There are other issues that will likely arise (and that have arisen in other cities) where it is not clear whether the mayor (or the manager) has the authority to act or whether the council does. In these situations, the council and the city administration could draw their respective battle swords and charge; or, one or both sides could first analyze the issue, perhaps seeking counsel of the city attorney or of the consultants at MRSC.

Understanding roles is a necessary step in resolving many such conflicts. However, when the roles are not clearly defined in a particular situation, compromise may be in order. Statutes and case law may not provide a ready answer. All sides need flexibility to meet the challenges of a functioning and dynamic city government. If the focus is on providing good government rather than on turf wars, councilmembers, mayors, and managers can better fulfill their roles as public servants.