In The Commissioner Form Of Government

In the commissioner form of government, the essence lies in its unique approach to municipal administration, where elected commissioners act as both legislators and heads of city departments. This system, born from a need for efficiency and direct accountability, fundamentally reshapes the traditional separation of powers, offering a compelling alternative to mayoral-council structures.

The Genesis of the Commissioner Form

The commissioner form of government emerged in the early 20th century, a period marked by rapid urbanization and increasing demands on city services. The devastating Galveston Hurricane of 1900 is often cited as the catalyst for its creation. In the wake of the disaster, the existing mayoral-council government proved inadequate in coordinating relief efforts and rebuilding the city. A group of concerned citizens proposed a radical solution: replacing the mayor and council with a small body of commissioners, each responsible for a specific area of city administration.

This initial experiment in Galveston proved surprisingly successful. The commissioners, chosen for their expertise and commitment, were able to cut through bureaucratic red tape and implement effective policies. News of Galveston's success spread quickly, and other cities, particularly those struggling with corruption or inefficiency, began to adopt the commissioner form. It was seen as a way to bring business principles to government, streamlining operations and ensuring accountability.

Structure and Functioning

At its core, the commissioner form is characterized by the concentration of executive and legislative authority in the hands of a small group of elected commissioners. Each commissioner typically heads a specific department, such as public works, finance, or public safety. This dual role is a defining feature of the system.

• Legislative Role: Commissioners collectively form the city council, responsible for enacting ordinances, approving budgets, and setting overall policy direction.
• Executive Role: Individually, each commissioner oversees the day-to-day operations of their assigned department, managing staff, implementing policies, and ensuring the delivery of services.

The allocation of departmental responsibilities varies from city to city. In some cases, commissioners are assigned departments based on their professional background or expertise. In others, they may be assigned through a lottery or rotation system. Regardless of the method, the key is that each commissioner has direct control over a significant area of city government.

The position of mayor in a commission government is often a largely ceremonial role. The mayor is usually chosen from among the commissioners, either by popular vote or by their fellow commissioners. Unlike a strong-mayor system, the mayor in a commission government typically does not have veto power or the authority to appoint or remove department heads. Their primary responsibilities are to preside over council meetings and represent the city in official functions.

Advantages of the Commissioner Form

Proponents of the commissioner form argue that it offers several key advantages over traditional forms of municipal government:

• Direct Accountability: The direct link between commissioners and their departments makes them directly accountable to the public for the performance of those departments. Citizens know who to contact with concerns or complaints, and commissioners are motivated to address those concerns effectively.
• Efficiency: The streamlined structure of the commissioner form can lead to greater efficiency in government operations. With fewer layers of bureaucracy, decisions can be made more quickly and implemented more effectively.
• Expertise: By assigning commissioners to departments based on their expertise, the city can benefit from specialized knowledge and experience. This can lead to better policy decisions and more effective management of city resources.
• Responsiveness: Commissioners, being directly responsible for specific areas, tend to be more responsive to the needs and concerns of their constituents. They are more likely to be aware of local issues and to take action to address them.
• Reduced Corruption: The concentration of power in a small group of elected officials can make it easier to detect and prevent corruption. With fewer individuals involved in decision-making, it is more difficult for corrupt practices to go unnoticed.

Disadvantages of the Commissioner Form

Despite its advantages, the commissioner form also has several drawbacks that have led to its decline in popularity:

• Lack of Central Leadership: The absence of a strong mayor can lead to a lack of central leadership and coordination. Commissioners may prioritize the needs of their own departments over the overall needs of the city, leading to fragmentation and inefficiency.
• Potential for Conflicts: The combination of legislative and executive powers in the hands of individual commissioners can create conflicts of interest. Commissioners may be tempted to use their position to benefit their own departments or to pursue personal agendas.
• Lack of Expertise: While assigning commissioners based on expertise can be beneficial, it can also be problematic if commissioners lack the necessary skills or knowledge to effectively manage their departments.
• "Passing the Buck": When something goes wrong, commissioners can sometimes find it easy to blame each other, leading to a lack of accountability and a diffusion of responsibility.
• Vulnerability to Special Interests: Because commissioners are directly responsible for specific departments, they may be more vulnerable to pressure from special interest groups that have a stake in those departments.

The Decline of the Commissioner Form

While the commissioner form was initially popular, its limitations gradually became apparent. The lack of central leadership, the potential for conflicts of interest, and the increasing complexity of city government all contributed to its decline. Many cities that had adopted the commissioner form began to switch to other forms of government, such as the mayor-council or council-manager systems.

By the mid-20th century, the commissioner form had largely fallen out of favor. Today, it is used by only a small number of cities in the United States, primarily smaller communities. While it may still be a viable option for some cities, its limitations make it less well-suited to the challenges of modern urban governance.

Comparing Commissioner Form to Other Government Structures

To fully appreciate the commissioner form, it's useful to compare it to other common forms of municipal government:

• Mayor-Council Government: This is the most common form of city government in the United States. It features an elected mayor as the chief executive and an elected city council as the legislative body. The mayor-council system can be further divided into strong-mayor and weak-mayor systems, depending on the powers granted to the mayor.

  • Strong-Mayor: The mayor has significant executive powers, including the ability to appoint and remove department heads, veto council decisions, and prepare the city budget.
  • Weak-Mayor: The mayor has limited executive powers, often serving primarily as a figurehead. The council holds more power and may appoint department heads and control the budget.

  The key difference between the mayor-council and commissioner forms is the separation of powers. In the mayor-council system, the mayor is responsible for executive functions, while the council is responsible for legislative functions. In the commissioner form, these powers are combined in the hands of the commissioners.

• Council-Manager Government: This system combines an elected city council with a professional city manager. The council sets policy, while the city manager is responsible for implementing that policy and managing the day-to-day operations of the city. The city manager is appointed by the council and serves at its pleasure.

  The council-manager form is designed to provide professional management and expertise to city government. The city manager is typically a trained administrator with experience in municipal government. This system is often seen as more efficient and less political than the mayor-council or commissioner forms.

• Town Meeting Government: This is a form of direct democracy, where all registered voters in a town are eligible to participate in town meetings. At these meetings, residents debate and vote on issues facing the town, such as the budget, ordinances, and capital projects.

  Town meeting government is most common in small New England towns. It is a highly participatory form of government, but it can be time-consuming and difficult to manage in larger communities.

The Modern Relevance of the Commissioner Form

While the commissioner form may not be widely used today, it still offers valuable lessons for modern municipal governance. Its emphasis on direct accountability, efficiency, and expertise remains relevant in an era of increasing demands on city services.

Some cities have adapted elements of the commissioner form into their existing government structures. For example, some mayor-council governments have created departmental committees made up of council members, giving them more direct oversight of specific areas of city government. Similarly, some council-manager governments have created advisory boards composed of citizens with expertise in specific fields, providing input on policy decisions.

The commissioner form also serves as a reminder of the importance of innovation and experimentation in government. It was created in response to a specific crisis and designed to address the unique challenges facing Galveston at the time. While it may not be a perfect solution for all cities, it demonstrates the value of thinking creatively about how to organize and manage government.

The Role of Public Engagement

No matter the form of government, public engagement is crucial for ensuring that government is responsive to the needs and concerns of its citizens. Public engagement can take many forms, including:

• Public Hearings: These are formal meetings where citizens can provide input on proposed policies or projects.
• Town Hall Meetings: These are informal meetings where elected officials can meet with constituents to discuss issues and answer questions.
• Citizen Advisory Boards: These are groups of citizens who provide advice and recommendations to elected officials on specific issues.
• Online Forums and Social Media: These platforms can be used to facilitate dialogue between citizens and government officials.
• Surveys and Polls: These can be used to gauge public opinion on important issues.

By actively engaging with the public, elected officials can gain a better understanding of the needs and concerns of their constituents and make more informed decisions. Public engagement also helps to build trust and transparency in government.

Case Studies of Cities Using the Commissioner Form

While the commissioner form is not widely used, there are still a few cities that continue to operate under this system. Examining these case studies can provide insights into the strengths and weaknesses of the commissioner form in practice.

• Tulsa, Oklahoma: Tulsa adopted the commissioner form in 1908 and retained it until 1989, when it switched to a strong-mayor system. During its time under the commissioner form, Tulsa experienced significant growth and development. However, the lack of central leadership and the potential for conflicts of interest eventually led to dissatisfaction with the system.
• Portland, Oregon: Portland is the largest city in the United States still operating under the commissioner form. Each of the five commissioners is elected city-wide and oversees specific city departments. The mayor is also a commissioner and has some additional executive responsibilities. While Portland has faced challenges under the commissioner form, it has also been praised for its innovative policies and its commitment to sustainability.
• Smaller Communities: Many smaller communities across the United States continue to use the commissioner form. In these communities, the commissioner form can provide a simple and efficient way to manage local government. However, the lack of resources and expertise can be a challenge.

These case studies highlight the importance of considering the specific context and needs of a city when choosing a form of government. What works well in one city may not work well in another.

The Future of Municipal Governance

The commissioner form may not be the dominant model of municipal governance today, but its legacy continues to influence how cities are governed. The principles of direct accountability, efficiency, and expertise remain relevant, and many cities are experimenting with new forms of government that incorporate elements of the commissioner form.

As cities face increasingly complex challenges, such as climate change, income inequality, and infrastructure deficits, it is more important than ever to find innovative and effective ways to govern. This may involve adapting existing forms of government, creating new forms of government, or simply improving the way that government operates.

The key is to be open to new ideas, to experiment with different approaches, and to learn from both successes and failures. By doing so, cities can create governments that are responsive to the needs of their citizens, efficient in their operations, and effective in addressing the challenges of the 21st century.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

• What is the main characteristic of the commissioner form of government?

  The defining feature is the fusion of legislative and executive powers in the hands of a small group of elected commissioners, each heading a specific city department.

• Why did the commissioner form decline in popularity?

  The absence of strong central leadership, potential conflicts of interest, and the increasing complexity of city government contributed to its decline.

• Is the commissioner form still used today?

  Yes, but primarily by smaller communities. Portland, Oregon, is the largest city in the U.S. still operating under this form.

• How does the commissioner form differ from the mayor-council form?

  The mayor-council system separates executive (mayor) and legislative (council) powers, whereas the commissioner form combines these powers in the commissioners.

• What are some advantages of the commissioner form?

  Direct accountability, efficiency, potential for expertise, responsiveness to constituents, and reduced corruption are often cited as advantages.

Conclusion

The commissioner form of government, born from the ashes of a natural disaster and fueled by a desire for efficiency and accountability, represents a unique chapter in the history of municipal governance. While it may not be the dominant model today, its legacy continues to inform and inspire efforts to improve the way cities are governed. By understanding its strengths and weaknesses, we can better appreciate the complexities of urban governance and work towards creating more effective and responsive governments for the future. The lessons learned from the commissioner form, particularly the emphasis on direct accountability and the importance of adapting government structures to meet specific needs, remain valuable in an era of rapid change and increasing demands on city services.