According to Terry and Tom (122), a strong mayor system form of government places executive to the mayor where he or she “formulates the budget, recommends policy, and oversees the day to day administration of the city programs. ” Such a system according to Kemp (68) “rejects the widespread scattering of administration responsibilities, provides for an executive budget, and enables the mayor ton assume direction of an integrated and administrative structure. ” This is apt summary of the whole idea behind a strong mayor form of government.A weak form of government on the other hand places the responsibilities of running city’s finances, appointments and other core functions on the hand of a powerful council. One major difference between a weak form and a strong form of government is that in a strong mayor system, the top leadership is elected into the office by the voters for a period of four years per tenure while in the weak form; the manager is voted in by the members of the council.
A look at Dallas city reveals that it has been under a weak mayor system run by a city manager.Should this system change to a strong mayor form of government, there are a number of benefits and disadvantages that will arise. It is these pros and cons that will remain the interest of this paper. One core benefit that will be brought by such a change is that Dallas city will be placed under the leadership of an individual whose sole accountability will be to the electorate. Under the current system, the city manager is placed into office by close to 10 individuals who are members of the city council.One major disadvantage with the current system is that he head of the city council is not directly accountable to the electorate but to the few individuals that put him to office.
According to Blanche Evans, “not only does this serve only the people closest to council members, it is a direct violation tom law. ” (Realty Times) The strong mayor system ensures the council is more responsive the needs, aspirations and the problems affecting the people.The strong mayor system not only ensures accountability and quick responsiveness, it also gives he voters a chance to change their mayor after every four years should it be felt that his or her performance is below the electorates’ expectations. Currently, the powers to hire and fire the city manager are under the members of the city council. A look at the history of Dallas city reveals that a situation has never arisen that witnessed the firing of any single city manager even though they have continued to perform dismally.
With the strong mayor system, the electorate can decide to vote out a mayor who has been unable to deliver on his or her promises (Evans). With the strong mayor system placing executive powers on one elected individual and the buck stopping on such an individual, there are immense expectations placed on the mayor to perform and hence ensuring decisiveness in policy formulation and implementation. A weak mayor system is filled with squabbles from the members with each trying to influence the formulation and implementation of policies as the city manager has to seek their approval before hand.A strong mayor is under no obligation to seek the approval of the council; and hence has a leeway in his or her operations.
There are also a number of disadvantages that comes with the strong mayor form. It a system that places too much responsibilities in the hands of a single individual which can be a breeding ground for incomprehensiveness in policy formulation and implementation. The running of city affair is no easy feat and requires the efforts of a number of individuals to oversee the effective running of the various projects and programs (Kemp 69).A weak mayor system places the responsibility of managing the city on a competent individual who is nominated by the council. Such a manager must be competent in managerial and administrative skills. This is a factor that can be lacking in a strong system as the mayor is a political figure elected on the basis of his political prowess and leadership skills and not necessarily a professional in administration.
He might not be competent enough to run the affairs of city (Terry & Tom 123).There is a growing feeling that it is the high time that Dallas city embraced the strong mayor system of government. Such a change will see the leadership of the city placed upon a mayor who is directly elected by the residents, a leader who is more likely to be responsive to their needs rather than to the needs of a small clique in the councils leadership. However, with such a system in place, the city runs the risk of placing the control of city’s affairs in the hands of an individual who lacks in the necessary skills to run the council.
