The CP Edit: Governing Lansing

Where you stand on an issue often depends on where you sit. And so it is with the occasional urge to change Lansing’s mayor-council form of city government to a council-manager form of government. It’s a question that pops up every few years but has never gained much traction as an alternative to the capital city’s longstanding approach to municipal governance. (See page 11 in today’s edition for our related story.)

For the unfamiliar, Lansing’s mayor-council system of governance — also known as a “strong mayor” system — is led by a popularly elected mayor who serves as the city’s chief executive officer. The mayor is solely responsible for the day-to-day operations of the city and hires, with council approval, a staff of professionals to manage the various city departments. The Council controls the annual budget and establishes city policies by passing resolutions and ordinances.

The council-manager governance model is altogether different. Chosen by the elected council from among its members, the mayor is the most visible public official of the city but with no more operational authority than any other member of council. The position is largely ceremonial. To run the city’s day-to-day operations, the council hires a professional city manager, who in turn hires qualified people to run the departments. The council-manager model is used in East Lansing, with mixed results. While the city appears to be efficiently run in most respects, East Lansing struggles to define its identity, fumbles through its economic development initiatives, and frequently has an unnecessarily contentious relationship with Michigan State University.

While city manager systems can be more efficient, one downside is that the manager has as many bosses as there are council members. It is said that city managers are more insulated from the changing winds of politics, but we’re not sure that’s always the case. The fact that the manager can be fired by the council at any time means they must bend to the will of council members in an effort to keep a majority satisfied with their performance. We’re also reminded of the expression that when everyone is in charge, no one is in charge.

There are considerable merits to keeping the system we have now. Lansing’s best days in the past 30 years have been under the direction of a strong mayor who knew how to get the job done — David Hollister and Virg Bernero both come to mind. Lansing’s arguably worst days have been at the hands of weaker mayors who tried to fill a position that requires strength —Tony Benavides and, thus far, Andy Schor fit that mold.

Chatter about changing Lansing’s system of governance pops up most often when people are dissatisfied with the decisions made by their elected leaders or have some animus toward a particular public official. Most recently, the candidacy of Bernero, who is seeking a fourth term as mayor, has renewed the conversation. Whatever feelings one might have toward Bernero, we’re not convinced that a decision to change forms of government in Lansing should be driven by the politics or personalities of the moment.

When all is said and done, we continue to believe that the optimal governing model for Lansing is a strong mayor who provides visionary leadership, an engaged council that pays attention to the details and holds the executive accountable, and capable managers who run the city departments. On balance, we favor the mayor-council form of government because it provides executive leadership that is directly accountable to the people every four years, just like the governor, rather than a part-time council with no particular expertise in municipal government directing the work of a city manager.

The reality is that either form of government can work and work well, but both of them depend on the quality of leadership elected by the people. As we learned over the course of four torturous years, national leadership by a singularly unqualified individual without the slightest idea how to run the federal government was an unmitigated disaster. In contrast, four years of a strong governor with a strong team have served Michigan quite well through some of the most challenging times the state and its people have ever faced.

And thus, once again, the quality of leadership at any level of government depends mightily on voter’s making smart choices. Cynics might opine that the people can’t be trusted to make those decisions, but we continue to have faith in the collective wisdom of the people as expressed through their votes. When they err, our democratic system provides a corrective mechanism — the next election.

It’s said that in a democracy, you get the government you vote for. Some would say you get the government you deserve. When less than one quarter of city voters participate in municipal elections, we’re not convinced that the people of Lansing are especially concerned about the city’s form of government. They are vastly more interested in getting the roads fixed, trash being picked up on time, and a quick response if they need help from the police or fire department. We believe both forms of government are capable of delivering on those needs.

With respect to strong mayor vs. city manager systems, Governing magazine once noted that “political problems being largely problems of human nature, no arrangement of duties is going to solve them all.”

We concur.