Political Systems of Sioux Falls, South Dakota and Minneapolis - Essay Example

Research Paper – Political Science The purpose of this paper is to comprehensively compare and contrast the implementation of two types of mayor-council government systems which are that of the weak-mayor type of the mayor council system and the strong-mayor type of the mayor council system. The premise of the analysis which has been conducted in this paper is based upon assessing the local governments of two cities within the United States – Sioux Falls, South Dakota and Minneapolis, Minnesota which follow the adoption of a strong-mayor system and weak-mayor system respectively. With regard to a mayor-council form, the system itself is based upon the presence of numerous factors which lead to the creation of a range of types which share one basic foundation. As suggested by the premise of this form of local government, the primary actors which come together to continue the sustenance of this framework include the mayor and the council, both of which must be elected (Center for Governmental Research 1). Consequently, the presence of these two parties within the wider framework entails the extent to which each actor holds a certain degree or extent of authority in managing the affairs of the city, this notion implies that the distribution of power and authority maybe classified as relative or absolute wherein it may favor the elected mayor or the elected council in terms of possession of power on the basis of the chosen variation of the mayor-council form of government. As suggested by its name, the weak-form system is characterized by a lack of provision of authority for mayors. In observation it is understood that the adoption of this system is said to fulfill the objectives of limiting or restricting the rise in the domination of executives who may eventually progress as dictators if their powers are not limited and broadly distributed (Christensen and Hogen-Esch 113). Moreover, an assessment of the governmental motivations for the creation of a weak mayor system indicates that this form of government was essentially established to demonstrate criticism against the rule of England, also another motivation for promoting this system was rooted in the fact that it supposedly acted as a means of allocating and distributing power and authority amongst the common man, which is an aspect that had not been achieved by previous forms of governments or systems (Center for Governmental Research 1). From a comparative perspective it can be identified that Minneapolis’ preference of the weak mayor-council form essentially restricts the mayor’s ability to manage the operations of local governance procedures in the implementation of which the mayor of Sioux Falls maybe more involved because of the adoption of a variant system of government. While, the governance related issues and questions of authority constitute a large part of the debate regarding weak-mayor form and strong-mayor form it is important to distinguish the aspects which render each of these types as being different from one another. According to the Center for Governmental Research, the mayor is not granted the power and authority to influence critical decision making in a number of aspects involving matters of administration and governance (1). These aspects can be identified as 1) the absence of authority to recruit staff members and discharge staff members who had previously been recruited to perform governmental duties 2) the absence of veto power 3) the requirement of power allocation which essentially leads to a sharing or distribution of authority amongst a number of individuals such as council members rather than holding an absolute command over all matters of significance and more importantly 4) the absence of imposing authority over critical matters involving financial budgeting and allocation of budget for governance purposes (Center for Governmental Research 1-2). As noted in the Handbook for Minnesota Cities, the weak form government is preferred and favored as the most common governance setup for various cities in the state (6). The merits of this plan are primarily assessed on the basis of the fact that it equips council members to have control over the management of administrative activities and operations while, the authority which is commanded by the mayor does not exceed the degree of power which has been provided to any other member of the council (Handbook for Minnesota Cities 7). A critical point of significance which enhances the merit of this system in comparison with a strong-form type is identified by the fact that individuals who are responsible for managing the administrative affairs of the city are only granted the position in accordance with their educational status, professional scope, experience and skills thereby, eliminating the prospects of recruiting an individual on the basis of political influence or motivations (Handbook for Minnesota Cities 7). The reason why this aspect is recognized as a crucial benefit of a weak-form system is marked by the fact that since, a highly influential sole figure such as the mayor does not dominate the progress of this system it becomes virtually impossible for a council member who holds similar powers to conduct an appointment in accordance with personal preference rather than merit. Given this observation, it is important to reiterate the point which has been raised by Christensen and Hogen-Esch that the adoption of a weak-form government is an answer which has been given by the post-revolutionists to the colonial and monarchal systems of governance which were championed by England (113). Thus, a weak-form system aims to address the problem of governmental dominance from the grass roots levels which is that of local governments to inspire comprehensive change within the wider community and also across the nation. On the other hand, the presence of a strong-mayor form commands that an individual has complete authority over the management and administration of a city’s operations through the provision of powers which are excluded or not available to the mayor in a weak-form government (Center for Governmental Research 2). While, it is evident that power balance in this system lies on a single individual, the execution of accountability procedures ensures that the council to some extent is able to offset the provision of authority to the mayor by keeping a method of check and balance on mayoral actions through auditing mechanisms (Center for Governmental Research 2). As stated previously, key motivations for abiding by a weak-form plan involve placing a restriction upon the authority of a single individual over governance procedures and also validate the just functioning of all mechanisms by appointing council members who are well-qualified and suitable for the job. Despite of these obvious merits of the system it can be observed that political lobbying in a weak-form system may become possible for example, in the current executive council of the city of Minneapolis 12 of the 13 members represent the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (DFL) while, only one member is a representative of Green. In this scenario it could still become possible to advance political ambitions when council membership is dominated by one party and not the other. Yet again, the question of accountability eventually becomes a critical source of concern in the assessment of a weak-form and strong-form government. According to the report presented by the Center for Governmental Research, the absence of a single source of accountability, to which the consequences of any specific actions can be traced back to is a valid issue with regard to the weak-form government (2). The issue is primarily rooted in the creation of several figures of authority and the absence of a final decision maker to run the affairs. In this scenario, any issues or administrative problems may face delays in terms of resolution and this could become a fundamental problem in the long-run. On the contrary, Frederickson, Johnson and Wood assert that the presence of a single figure for the management of affairs can also lead to problems because only one individual is provided with the responsibility of managing activities which could be problematic and inefficient (161). Therefore, in comparison with Sioux Falls’ governance plan the mechanism which exists in Minneapolis can be inefficient because of political intervention and the inclusion of several members who are essentially provided with the same level of influence over decision-making. However, with regard to the plan which has been implemented in Sioux Falls governance can transform into a matter of political lobbying and favoritism on the basis of political party affiliations and memberships. The Center for Governmental Research suggests that the matter of partisanship is likely to become exacerbated in a system of strong-form because the mayor can utilize his power to influence voters while, he might not be able to do the same in a weak-form setup (3). Similarly, this case also applies to the scope of recruitment which is conducted on the basis of political motivations and affiliations rather than pure merit and qualification. In conclusion the scope of governance in Sioux Falls, South Dakota and Minneapolis, Minnesota is rooted in the notion of the mayor-council form whereby, the presence of two actors or parties leads the administration of day to day activities of the city by integrating various mechanisms to achieve designated objectives. However, while these plans are characterized by parallel elements because they are variations of the same model of governance it is important to note that the outcomes of favoring one plan over the other maybe different. For example, while analyst reports on the economic development of Minneapolis are marked by only slow and gradual progress Sioux Falls has been marching forward as a consequence of investment opportunities and other ventures which have been encouraged by the government of the city (Argus Leader). This consequence can be linked with the decision making of the city’s mayor who has been equipped with the authority to execute clear guidance for future operations rather than being influenced by the separate agendas of council members in a weak-form government. Certainly, a strong-form government is the most appropriate governance solutions for cities which are based on a political structure which focuses on a strong commitment towards growth rather than focusing upon the nature of governmental issues. In this regard, the outcomes of a strong-form government have proven to be successful for Sioux Falls in the area of economic development while, similar results have not been achieved in Minneapolis. Works Cited Argus Leader Staff Reports. Economic impact report: Summit tourney contributed $8.5M to area. Argus Leader. Accessed from [30th April, 2014] Center for Governmental Research. Models of City Government. CGR. Accessed from < http://www.cgr.org/onebataviacharter/docs/ModelsofCityGovernment.pdf> [30th April, 2014] Christensen, Terry, and Tom Hogen-Esch. Local politics: A practical guide to governing at the grassroots. ME Sharpe, 2006. Frederickson, H. George, Gary Alan Johnson, and Curtis H. Wood. The adapted city: Institutional dynamics and structural change. ME Sharpe, 2003. Handbook for Minnesota Cities. St. Paul, Minn: League of Minnesota Cities, 1987. Read More