But Brimmer insists his proposal has been misinterpreted and that he is not suggesting a return to the system of federally appointed commissioners. In fact, Brimmer’s model is a modified version of a "council-manager" government created around the turn of the century to combat inefficient delivery of services while preserving a strong, democratically elected city council.

"This is not a commissioner system," Brimmer said last week in an interview with The Common Denominator. "The commissioners were appointed by the President. The locals had nothing to do with it, and it didn’t require anyone’s approval."

The council-manager model of local government concentrates power in the hands of an elected mayor and city council, which hire nonpartisan professional managers to oversee day-to-day operations and delivery of public services. The managers are administrators, not politicians.

More than 75 million Americans live under some form of the council-manager structure, according to the International City-County Management Association. Nearly half of all cities and towns with populations larger than 2,500 operate under some form of the council-manager model. Among them are Kansas City, Mo.; Austin, Texas; Charlotte, N.C.; Cincinnati, Ohio; Richmond, Va.; Oklahoma City, Okla.; Sacramento, Calif.; and Raleigh, N.C.

Brimmer’s proposal, presented June 4 at the 57th annual Judicial Conference of the District Circuit in Williamsburg, Va., calls for three managers appointed by the mayor and approved by the city council.

The elected mayor and council would set policy and make laws, Brimmer said, while the managers would oversee day-to-day operations and finances.

"My approach has a strong mayor and strong council, responsible for setting policy and giving direction," he said. "But they would not be responsible for the day-to-day operations. That would be confined to the Chief Management Officer, the Chief Financial Officer and the Inspector General."

Other control board members indicate some form of a council-manager system is likely to be considered for the District. In a statement released last Friday, Vice Chairman Stephen Harlan and member Constance Newman outlined five possible structures for the future government of the District of Columbia. Four included some form of city manager or managers. The non-manager option, the mayor-city council structure, was the form of governance in the District for most of the home rule period.

Newman and Harlan emphasized, however, that any changes to the home rule charter should be made by city voters. Options should be actively debated and decided through a referendum vote, they said.

According to Brimmer’s proposal, the CMO would select and appoint department heads and agency directors subject to approval by the mayor and confirmation by the council. The CMO would have the power to remove agency directors and to award contracts for goods and services.

The CFO would manage the finances of the District, certify the annual revenue forecast, monitor performance of all agencies and order measures to ensure compliance with budgets. The CFO also would appoint department heads for financial agencies and appoint agency level financial managers and staff.

The Inspector General would conduct audits and investigations of District operations.

The mayor would draw up the city’s annual budget based on the CFO’s revenue forecast, appoint corporation counsel and appoint heads of the District’s independent authorities and agencies. The mayor could remove managers "for cause" at any time with the council’s approval.

The city council would make laws, approve the budget, advise the mayor on appointment of managers and appoint board members of independent authorities.

"The ability to operate without day-to-day interference is of extreme importance. It provides the day-to-day operations of the city some insulation from political debate," Brimmer said. "Every time a manager makes a decision, he doesn’t have to look over his shoulder and see if the mayor and council would overturn it."

Since the first council-manager model of government was adopted by Staunton, Va., in 1908, supporters have claimed it takes partisan insider "politics" out of the government’s daily operations in favor of professional, corporate-style management. The managers enforce and carry out the policies set by the mayor and council.

"The schools would have their own structure...the school board. It would be an independent system except for operations purposes, such as contracting, in which the CMO would have oversight," he said.

Copyright 1998, The Common Denominator