“City managers don't make policy:” A lie; let's face it

The Complementarity View: Exploring a Continuum in Political—Administrative Relations

“…In contrast to the politics–administration dichotomy, the complementarity view supports a broader policy initiation and formulation role for public administrators. Public administrators are seen as policy entrepreneurs who should provide elected officials with policy proposals, alternative problem definitions, and innovative solutions to the pressing problems of communities (e.g., Ammons and Newell 1988; Browne 1985; Rivera, Streib, and Willoughby 2000; Teske and Schneider 1994). In the survey, three specific statements were written to evaluate the frequency of involvement by city managers in activities that suggest policy initiation and formulation: (1) preparing or drafting legislation to address an important policy problem, (2) initiating a policy to address a city problem, and (3) preparing a policy or project proposal to solve a problem that has been acknowledged by the council.…”

“…What makes an activity political or policy related depends on (1) the degree of partisanship suggested in the activities, and (2) the need for independent leadership initiatives undertaken by administrators. Th e partisan nature of politics results in public administrators' identifi cation with particular interests, which, consequently, may bring about a loss of public trust in their professional competence (Ammons and Newell 1989). Independent leadership initiatives undertaken by public administrators, on the other hand, may undermine the position of elected offi cials (Lockard 1962;Svara 1990).…”

“…As frequently noted by complementarity scholars, elected offi cials are senior partners in the relationship, and their authority must be respected. Some policy leadership activities, as noted in the literature, may undermine the authority of elected offi cials if administrators develop a signifi cant power base in the community (e.g., Ammons and Newell 1989;Svara 1990). Mobilizing citizens for the adoption of a policy might be seen by city managers in this light or discouraged by elected offi cials.…”

Understanding CEO Role Perception and Time Usage: Are New Municipal Typologies Useful?

“…Much of this interest stems from the complexity of roles scholars discover in the position of the city manager in local governments, and numerous studies have demonstrated that city managers are required to participate in many areas outside their administrative realm (Ammons & Newell, 1988;Blubaugh, 1987;Bosworth, 1958;Loveridge, 1968). Deil S. Wright (1969) Svara (1985) also suggests that this model can also be applied to the examination of municipal mayors in mayor-council municipalities as well as city managers in council-manager cities.…”

“…This study utilizes two of the most comprehensive new taxonomies (along with the traditional mayor-council and council-manager typology) to examine whether this classification can offer insight concerning how the chief executive officer (CEO) of local municipalities (mayors in mayor-council form cities and city managers in council-manager form cities) allocate their work time and perceive of their role (Figure 1 below compares the three typologies and where they fit along a hypothetical reformed -unreformed dimension). This paper first examines, using these three typologies, how mayors and managers actually use their work time by examining time allocation between the "Political", "Policy", and "Management" work roles as described by Newell and Ammons (1987) in their 1987 Public Administration Review article and subsequent book (Ammons & Newell, 1988). It is anticipated that that if the institutional changes described in each typology make a difference in the duties that a mayor or manager conceive of as part of their role, the analysis should then reveal differences in how these officials allocate their work time.…”