Last updated 3 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
Navigating the landscape of local government in the United States can sometimes feel complex, but understanding its fundamental structures is key to becoming an engaged citizen.
Most municipalities and counties operate under one of two primary systems: the Council-Manager form or the Mayor-Council form. Each system dictates how your city or town is run, how policies are made, and who is ultimately responsible for the services you rely on every day.
The specific structure of any local government is established by state law and often detailed in a city’s own charter, a foundational document akin to a local constitution. This article will explore these two dominant forms, helping you understand their mechanics, strengths, weaknesses, and how they impact your community.
The Council-Manager System: Professional Management Meets Political Leadership
The council-manager form of government is a widely adopted structure in the U.S., particularly in mid-sized cities and a majority of those with populations over 2,500. It aims to blend strong political leadership from elected officials with the robust managerial experience of an appointed professional.
Defining the Council-Manager Form
At its core, the council-manager system features an elected city council (or a similar body like a board of aldermen or commission) that serves as the community’s primary legislative and policy-making authority. This council, in turn, hires a professionally trained and educated city manager (or town/county administrator) to act as the chief executive officer, responsible for overseeing daily operations and implementing the council’s policies.
All power is concentrated in the elected council, which embodies representative democracy. This structure is designed to separate the political, policy-making functions from the administrative, operational functions of local government, a distinction that proponents believe leads to more efficient and non-partisan governance.
The International City/County Management Association highlights that in a true council-manager government, all governmental authority rests with the council except for specific duties assigned to the manager, whose functions are codified by law and who is responsible to the entire council.
The City Council: Setting the Vision
The city council in a council-manager system is the community’s legislative and policymaking engine. Its members, often part-time volunteers, are elected by the community to represent their interests and develop a long-range vision for its future.
Key powers and responsibilities of the council include:
Establishing policies affecting the community’s overall operation. The council sets the strategic direction for the city, making decisions about priorities and values that will guide city operations.
Approving the city budget and determining tax rates. This power of the purse gives the council ultimate control over city finances and spending priorities.
Focusing on community goals, major projects, and long-term considerations. The council deals with big-picture issues such as community growth, land use development, capital improvements, financing, and strategic planning.
Hiring a professional city manager. The council selects the manager based on their education, experience, skills, and abilities, rather than political allegiance.
Supervising the manager’s performance. Crucially, the council possesses the authority to terminate the manager by a majority vote if they are not responsive to the council’s direction or if their performance is unsatisfactory, consistent with local laws or employment agreements. Control always remains in the hands of the elected representatives.
The structure of the council itself can vary; some communities elect council members at-large (representing the entire city), while others elect them by district, or a combination of both. This adaptability allows the form to be tailored to local preferences and needs.
The City Manager: The Day-to-Day Executive
The city manager is the administrative head of the municipal government, appointed by the council to implement its policies and manage the daily affairs of the city. This individual is selected for their professional training, experience, and managerial skills, operating ideally as a nonpartisan administrator.
The city manager’s key responsibilities include:
Preparing a recommended annual budget for the council’s consideration and final approval.
Recruiting, hiring, supervising, and, if necessary, terminating government staff and department heads.
Serving as the council’s chief advisor, providing complete and objective information on local operations, discussing the pros and cons of alternatives, and offering assessments of the long-term consequences of decisions.
Carrying out the council’s policies with an emphasis on effective, efficient, and equitable service delivery.
Making policy recommendations to the council for their consideration and final decision; the manager is bound by whatever action the council takes.
The manager serves at the pleasure of the council and can be removed by a majority vote, ensuring that ultimate control rests with the elected officials who are accountable to the citizens. This continuous accountability to the entire council, rather than to a single elected executive or to the voters directly, is a hallmark of the system.
It is intended to insulate the manager from direct political pressures, allowing them to focus on professional administration. However, this same insulation can be a point of criticism, with some arguing it can make managers less directly responsive to public concerns.
The Mayor’s Role in a Council-Manager System
In most council-manager cities, the mayor is a voting member of the city council and often serves as its presiding officer. The mayoral position is largely ceremonial and facilitative, without the independent executive powers found in strong mayor-council systems. The mayor may be directly elected by the voters at large or selected by their colleagues on the council.
Typical duties of the mayor in this system include:
- Presiding at council meetings
- Representing the city in intergovernmental relationships and at official functions
- Appointing members of citizen advisory boards and commissions, usually with the advice and consent of the council
- Facilitating communication and understanding between elected and appointed officials
- Assisting the council in setting goals and advocating policy decisions
While the mayor shares legislative functions with the rest of the council, they do not typically have veto power or direct administrative authority over city departments. The National Civic League’s Model City Charter, a strong proponent of the council-manager form, envisions the mayor as a “chief legislator” and leader of the policy-making team, focusing on facilitative leadership rather than executive command.
How it Works in Practice: The Corporate Model Analogy
The council-manager system is often likened to the governance structure of a publicly traded corporation. In this analogy:
The citizens are like the shareholders of the corporation, the ultimate owners who elect representatives to look after their interests.
The city council functions like the board of directors, responsible for setting the overall vision, establishing major policies, and hiring a chief executive to manage the organization.
The city manager is analogous to the corporate chief executive officer (CEO), appointed by the board (council) to oversee administrative operations, implement policies, and advise the board.
The mayor, in this model, is similar to a non-executive chairperson of the board, leading council meetings and representing the organization ceremonially, but without independent executive authority over operations.
This separation of roles is intended to leverage the democratic legitimacy of elected officials for policy-making and the specialized expertise of a professional manager for administration. The council focuses on what the city should do (policy goals and vision), while the manager focuses on how to do it effectively and efficiently (administration and service delivery). This clarity allows elected officials to dedicate their time to strategic planning and policy development, free from the minutiae of daily operational oversight.
The Mayor-Council System: A Familiar Structure of Separated Powers
The mayor-council system is another prevalent form of municipal government in the United States, characterized by a distinct separation of executive and legislative powers, much like the federal and state governments.
Defining the Mayor-Council Form
In a mayor-council government, a mayor, who is directly elected by the voters, serves as the chief executive officer of the city. Separately, an elected city council constitutes the legislative body. Together, the mayor and council work to balance and pass a budget, draft and enforce legislation, oversee city departments, and appoint departmental heads. The specific powers and influence of the mayor relative to the council determine whether the system is categorized as a “strong mayor” or “weak mayor” variant.
This structure, with its clear division between an executive branch (mayor) and a legislative branch (council), is often more familiar to citizens as it mirrors the system used at the federal and state levels of U.S. government. This familiarity can make the roles and responsibilities within the local government seem more intuitive. The number of city council members can vary significantly from one city to another; for example, the Madison Common Council consists of 20 members, while the New York City Council has 51.
The “Strong Mayor”: A Powerful Executive
In the strong mayor-council system, the mayor is endowed with significant executive and administrative authority, acting as the city’s undisputed chief executive. This model concentrates substantial power in a single, directly elected individual.
Powers and Responsibilities of the Strong Mayor:
Chief Executive: The mayor serves as the city’s chief executive, with the council acting as the legislative body.
Appointment and Dismissal: The mayor typically has the power to appoint and dismiss department heads and key personnel, although some city charters may require council confirmation for these actions.
Budgetary Authority: The mayor is usually responsible for drafting and proposing the annual city budget to the city council for approval.
Veto Power: A strong mayor possesses the power to veto legislation passed by the city council, including line-item veto power in some cases. The council can typically override a mayoral veto, but this usually requires a super-majority vote (e.g., two-thirds).
Operational Oversight: The mayor exercises oversight of the city’s day-to-day operations and is responsible for enforcing city laws and ordinances.
Separation from Council: In this system, the mayor is not a member of the city council.
The centralization of executive power in a strong mayor provides a clear point of accountability. Citizens know who is in charge of the city’s administration, and this can lead to decisive leadership, especially in large, complex urban environments. However, this concentration of authority also carries risks. The effectiveness of the city’s administration can become heavily reliant on the individual skills, integrity, and administrative talents of the person holding the mayoral office. A strong mayor lacking administrative acumen or one who engages in political patronage can potentially undermine professionalism and hinder efficient city operations.
The Council’s Legislative Role in a Strong Mayor System:
While the mayor holds significant executive power, the city council retains crucial legislative and oversight functions. It acts as the primary legislative body, responsible for passing city ordinances and, importantly, approving the budget proposed by the mayor. The council’s power of the purse is a significant check on mayoral authority, as budgets can only be funded by council ordinance.
Furthermore, the council typically has the power to override mayoral vetoes, ensuring that the legislative will of the elected council can prevail if there is sufficient consensus. Councils may also retain the power to confirm mayoral appointments for key personnel or limit the mayor’s ability to dismiss personnel without approval, providing another layer of oversight.
The relationship between the mayor and the council in a strong mayor system is inherently political; they serve as checks on each other’s power. This dynamic is essential for maintaining a balance of power and preventing any single branch from dominating governance. The effectiveness of these checks and balances can, however, be influenced by the local political landscape, such as whether one political party dominates both the mayor’s office and the council.
The “Weak Mayor”: More of a Figurehead
In contrast to the strong mayor system, the “weak mayor” variant of the mayor-council form significantly curtails the mayor’s executive authority, with more power residing in the city council.
Limited Powers and Shared Authority of the Weak Mayor:
Ceremonial Role: The mayor’s role is often largely ceremonial, primarily serving as the chairperson of the city council and representing the city at official functions. They preside over council meetings but generally lack substantial independent executive powers.
Appointment Powers: The mayor typically lacks the independent power to appoint or dismiss department heads; this authority is often vested in the council or shared with it.
Veto Power: The mayor has limited or no veto power over council legislation.
Budgetary Role: The council, often in consultation with the mayor or an appointed administrative officer, drafts the budget, rather than the mayor having primary budget preparation authority.
Operational Oversight: Oversight of daily operations and law enforcement is typically shared with the city council, an appointed administrative officer, or both.
Council Membership: The mayor may be a member of the city council and often serves as its presiding officer.
Council’s Central Role in Administration in a Weak Mayor System:
With the mayor’s powers curtailed, the city council assumes a more central role in the administration of the city. The council is generally responsible for appointing and approving department heads and plays a primary role in drafting the budget. In some instances, individual council members may even take on direct administrative oversight of specific city departments.
The weak mayor system was historically common in many U.S. cities, particularly smaller ones, and was often born from a desire to prevent the concentration of power in a single executive. However, this diffusion of authority can lead to significant governance challenges.
Critics point out that the mayor lacks the real power to effectively run the city, leading to multiple lines of authority and problems in coordinating services. Accountability can become blurred when too many individuals or the council as a whole are “in charge,” making it difficult for citizens to know who is responsible for particular outcomes. Furthermore, elected council members, who may be part-time and lack professional administrative training, might not possess the expertise needed to manage complex municipal services effectively. Over time, this form of government developed a “perception of inadequacy for the task of governing increasingly technical cities.”
Consequently, while the intent to share power is clear, the practical result in many weak mayor systems can be what some describe as “administration by committee,” where decisive leadership is difficult to achieve. This form may only be truly viable in very small towns where municipal functions are few and less complex, and where the cost of a professional administrator is a significant concern. Specific contemporary examples of purely weak-mayor cities are not always clearly defined in larger urban settings, as many have transitioned to stronger mayoral forms or council-manager systems. The mayoralty often remains ceremonial in many small and medium-sized cities, particularly those that might otherwise fit a council-manager profile or a traditional weak mayor structure.
A Helping Hand: The Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) in Mayor-Council Systems
Recognizing the administrative challenges that can arise in mayor-council systems, particularly the concern that an elected mayor may not always possess extensive managerial expertise, some cities have incorporated the position of a Chief Administrative Officer (CAO). This role is designed to bring professional management into the mayor-council framework.
The CAO is typically a professionally trained administrator appointed to oversee the daily operations of city departments, similar in function to a city manager but operating under the direction of the mayor. In strong mayor systems, the CAO reports directly to the mayor.
The introduction of a CAO can professionalize the administrative functions of a strong mayor government and provide valuable continuity and institutional memory, especially if the CAO is retained through different mayoral administrations. This hybrid approach attempts to combine the political leadership of an elected mayor with the operational expertise of a professional administrator, addressing one of the key criticisms of the traditional strong mayor model—that the mayor may lack administrative skill.
However, for this model to be effective, the CAO appointment should be based on merit rather than political patronage, and cities may face challenges with CAO turnover as these professionals seek career advancement.
Comparing the Two Systems: Pros, Cons, and Key Differences
Choosing between a council-manager and a mayor-council system involves weighing various factors related to efficiency, leadership, accountability, and policy-making. Each system presents distinct advantages and disadvantages.
Efficiency and Service Delivery
Council-Manager System: This form is often lauded for its potential for efficiency and effective service delivery due to the presence of a professional, non-partisan city manager hired for their administrative expertise. The manager’s focus on day-to-day operations and policy implementation can lead to streamlined processes and cost savings.
Studies and reports have suggested that council-manager governments may perform better in terms of efficiency and financial status. For instance, an IBM Global Business Services report indicated that cities using the council-manager form are nearly 10% more efficient than those under the mayor-council form. Savings can arise from reduced operating costs, increased productivity, improved revenue collection, and effective technology use.
Mayor-Council System: Efficiency in this system can be more variable. A strong mayor with good administrative skills can provide decisive leadership and drive efficient operations. However, if the mayor lacks administrative expertise or if political considerations overshadow operational needs, inefficiencies can arise. The weak mayor variant, with its diffused authority and potential for “administration by committee,” is often criticized for leading to inefficiencies and coordination problems. Some research suggests that inefficiencies represent a major cost in mayor-council forms, while council-manager forms might incur “monitoring costs.”
Political Leadership and Accountability
Council-Manager System: Political leadership is vested in the elected city council, which collectively sets the policy agenda. The city manager is accountable to the council for the administration’s performance and can be removed by the council. This provides a clear line of accountability from the manager to the elected body.
However, the manager is not directly elected by the public, which some critics argue can make them less directly accountable or responsive to citizens’ immediate concerns compared to an elected mayor. The National Civic League’s Model City Charter emphasizes that the manager is continuously accountable to the council, unlike a strong mayor whose accountability might be delayed until the next election.
Mayor-Council System: This system, particularly the strong mayor variant, offers a highly visible, directly elected political leader in the mayor. The mayor is directly accountable to the voters at election time. This direct accountability can make the mayor highly responsive to public opinion. However, this can also lead to decisions being driven more by political expediency than by long-term planning or professional administrative principles.
In the weak mayor system, accountability can become diffused and unclear, as power is shared among the mayor and council, or primarily resides with the council.
Policy-Making and Implementation
Council-Manager System: There is a clear theoretical distinction: the council makes policy, and the manager implements it. The manager advises the council and makes policy recommendations, but the final decisions rest with the elected officials. This separation is intended to allow the council to focus on broad policy and vision, while the manager handles operational execution.
Mayor-Council System: In a strong mayor system, the mayor often plays a significant role in initiating and driving the policy agenda, in addition to their executive responsibilities. The council’s role is to legislate, deliberate on, and approve or reject these policies and the budget. This can lead to a dynamic policy environment but also has the potential for political conflict and gridlock if the mayor and council have differing priorities or are from opposing political factions. In a weak mayor system, policy-making is largely driven by the council.
Flexibility and Adaptability
Council-Manager System: One of its attractive features is its adaptability to local conditions and preferences. Councils can be elected at-large, by district, or a mix; mayors can be directly elected or chosen by the council.
Mayor-Council System: This system also offers flexibility through its strong and weak variations, and the option to appoint a CAO. This allows communities to choose a structure that aligns with their desired balance of executive power and professional administration.
Potential for Corruption and Political Patronage
Council-Manager System: This form was born out of the Progressive Era reform movement specifically to combat corruption and the spoils system prevalent in many mayor-council cities at the time. The emphasis on a non-partisan, professionally qualified city manager is intended to reduce political patronage in hiring and contracting. However, critics argue that concentrating hiring and firing power in an appointed manager can, if unchecked, perpetuate favoritism.
Mayor-Council System: The strong mayor system, with its concentration of appointment and executive powers in one elected official, can be susceptible to political patronage if the mayor chooses to reward political supporters with jobs or contracts. Conversely, the weak mayor system, if it leads to blurred accountability and a lack of clear authority, has been associated with fostering “machine politics” where informal power structures can thrive.
Historical Development: How Did We Get Here?
The forms of local government seen today in the United States are products of centuries of evolution, reform movements, and adaptation to changing societal needs.
Roots of the Mayor-Council System
The mayor-council system traces its lineage back to late medieval and early modern English towns, where municipal charters granted local elites the right to elect a mayor and council to manage local affairs. This structure was brought to North America by British colonists. Initially, in the colonies, mayors were often appointed by colonial governors, while council members were elected by colonists.
After the American Revolution, U.S. local governments retained the mayor-council system, but the power to appoint mayors shifted, often to the elected city councils themselves. Throughout the early 19th century, most American cities operated under a weak mayor-council form. In this arrangement, the mayor’s role was largely ceremonial, and the city council held most of the legislative, financial, and executive power. Early Americans were generally wary of concentrating too much power in a single executive official.
Beginning in the 1840s and 1850s, a shift occurred. Some cities began transitioning to strong mayor-council governments, expanding the mayor’s executive authority and increasingly electing mayors at-large (directly by all voters) rather than by the council. By the early 20th century, the strong mayor form was prevalent in many of the largest U.S. cities.
This transformation was driven by several factors, including the influence of Jacksonian democratic principles, which favored a strong executive branch, and a reaction to the perceived inefficiencies and corruption of some weak mayor-council governments, particularly their inability to curb the power of political bosses and machines. A strong, elected municipal executive was seen by reformers as a way to streamline legislative processes and provide more accountable leadership.
The Progressive Era and the Birth of the Council-Manager System
The late 19th and early 20th centuries witnessed the rise of the Progressive Movement, a period of widespread social activism and political reform in the United States. A key target of Progressive reformers was municipal government, which in many cities was plagued by corruption, inefficiency, and the dominance of political machines and the spoils system. Reformers sought to make local government more honest, efficient, and responsive to the public interest.
Out of this environment, the council-manager form of government emerged as a significant innovation. The core idea was to separate politics from administration by having an elected council set policy and a politically impartial, professional manager handle the administrative functions. This was seen as a way to bring expertise and business-like efficiency to city operations.
Staunton, Virginia, is credited as the first American city to appoint a city manager in 1908. The concept gained national attention when Dayton, Ohio, became the first sizable city to adopt the council-manager plan in 1913. The council-manager form also developed, in part, as a response to perceived limitations of another reform-era structure, the city commission government.
The National Civic League, formerly the National Municipal League, has been a strong proponent of the council-manager system, recommending it in its influential Model City Charter since 1915. The NCL’s early advocacy focused on addressing structural inefficiency, political corruption, and the need for a merit system for public employees. The council-manager plan’s popularity grew steadily, especially after World War II, as many municipalities sought professional management to tackle the backlog of needed services and improvements.
Prevalence and Trends: Which System is More Common Today?
The landscape of local government structures in the U.S. is dynamic, with distinct patterns in the prevalence of council-manager and mayor-council systems, as well as ongoing trends toward adaptation.
National Trends
Nationally, the council-manager form has become the most popular structure of local government, particularly for municipalities with populations of 2,500 or more. As of 2011 data from the International City/County Management Association, approximately 59% of U.S. cities used the council-manager system. More recent figures suggest this trend has continued, with some sources indicating 59% of cities in the U.S. using this model, and it being particularly prevalent in cities with populations over 10,000.
Specifically, 59% of the 347 municipalities with populations greater than 100,000 use the council-manager form. Phoenix, Arizona, is the largest U.S. city to retain this form. Examples of other large cities using the council-manager form include Dallas, San Antonio, and San Jose.
The mayor-council system remains the second most common form. As of 2011, 33% of U.S. cities used a mayor-council government, which was a notable decrease from 53% in 1981. This system is often found in very large cities or, conversely, in very small ones. Many of the nation’s largest urban centers, such as New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston, operate under a mayor-council structure, typically a strong mayor variant. However, among capital cities, the mayor-council form is more pervasive (56%).
The trend over recent decades has shown a gradual increase in the adoption of the council-manager form and a slight decrease in the mayor-council form. This reflects a continued movement towards professionalization in municipal administration.
Regional Variations
There are some discernible regional patterns in the distribution of these government forms.
Council-Manager: This form is most popular in the Southeast and Pacific Coast regions of the United States. Many cities in states like North Carolina, Florida, Texas, Arizona, and California utilize this system. For example, most of Texas’s most populous cities, except Houston, use the council-manager form.
Mayor-Council: This system is more commonly found in the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest regions. It is also prevalent in older, larger cities across various regions. Civil townships, which are subdivisions of counties, are primarily found in the Northeast and Midwest and often have different governance structures.
It’s important to note that these are general trends, and significant variation exists within states and regions. For instance, while Texas has many council-manager cities, Houston operates under a strong mayor-council system.
Hybrid Forms and Adaptations
A significant trend in local governance is the increasing prevalence of “hybrid” or “adapted” forms, where municipalities incorporate structural features from different traditional models. The lines between the pure forms are becoming less distinct as cities tailor their structures to meet specific local needs and respond to socioeconomic, demographic, and political changes.
The most common mixing occurs between the two most prevalent forms: mayor-council and council-manager. For example, a mayor-council city might appoint a Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) to bring professional management to daily operations, effectively borrowing an element from the council-manager philosophy. This “Type III city” or “adapted city” approach attempts to balance the political leadership of an elected mayor with the administrative efficiency often associated with a manager, while dealing with both potential inefficiency costs (from mayor-council) and monitoring costs (from council-manager).
Changes to government structure often involve modifying the method of electing the mayor, changing the mayor’s authority, or adjusting the number of council members.
Making Government Accessible and Relevant to You
Understanding the structure of your local government is more than an academic exercise; it’s fundamental to effective civic engagement and ensuring that your community’s governance reflects your needs and values.
Why Understanding Your Local Government Structure Matters
Local governments directly impact the daily lives of their citizens by making crucial decisions on education, transportation, public safety, zoning, parks, water, and community development. The form of government your city uses—whether council-manager or mayor-council—shapes how these decisions are made, who holds the power, and how responsive and accountable officials are to residents.
For instance:
In a council-manager system, your primary point of influence for policy change is the elected city council. Understanding that the city manager is an appointed professional responsible for implementing council policy helps direct your advocacy effectively. Issues with service delivery might be addressed to the manager, but policy directives come from the council.
In a strong mayor-council system, the mayor holds significant executive power and is a key figure for both policy initiatives and administrative accountability. Knowing this helps you understand where to direct concerns about city services or policy direction.
A weak mayor-council system might mean that the council as a whole, or specific council committees, holds more sway over administrative matters, requiring a different approach for engagement.
The structure also influences how easily residents can participate in decision-making. Council-manager governments often emphasize resident engagement through boards and commissions. Mayor-council systems provide a direct electoral link to the chief executive, which can feel more immediately responsive. Understanding these nuances empowers you to make your voice heard more effectively.
How to Find Out Your City’s Form of Government
Determining your city’s form of government is usually straightforward. Here are some reliable sources:
City Charter: If your city is a “home-rule” city (often larger cities with more autonomy), its charter will explicitly define its form of government and the powers of its officials. Charters are typically available on the city’s official website or from the city clerk’s office. General-law cities (often smaller) have their structures defined by state law.
Official City Website: Most municipalities have websites that describe their governmental structure, often in an “About Us,” “Government,” or “City Council” section.
Local Library or Historical Society: These institutions often maintain records and information about local government.
Contact City Hall: The city clerk’s office or the mayor’s office can provide this information.
State Municipal League or Association of Counties: These organizations often compile information about the forms of government used by their member cities and counties. You can often find contact information for these organizations at websites like ICMA’s state local government associations page or National Civic League’s state municipal leagues directory.
Govfacts.org: While still developing its local guidance, Govfacts.org aims to condense government resources to provide clear information and is piloting programs in select counties. It may become a more comprehensive resource in the future. USAFacts also provides general data on local government types.
Engaging with Your Local Government, Regardless of Form
Regardless of whether your city has a council-manager or mayor-council system, active citizen participation is vital for a healthy democracy and responsive governance. Here are ways to get involved:
Vote in Local Elections: This is the most fundamental way to influence who represents you and makes decisions on your behalf. Local elections often have lower turnout than national ones, meaning your vote can have an even greater impact.
Attend Public Meetings: City council meetings, planning commission meetings, and other public hearings are opportunities to learn about issues, voice your opinions, and hear from officials. Many local governments now offer virtual attendance options and record meetings for later viewing.
Contact Your Elected Officials: Write letters, send emails, or meet with your mayor, council members, or other local representatives to discuss your concerns and suggestions.
Serve on Boards and Commissions: Many local governments rely on citizen advisory boards and commissions for areas like planning and zoning, parks and recreation, and libraries. Volunteering for these positions allows you to contribute your expertise and perspective directly.
Participate in Public Consultations and Surveys: Local governments often seek public input on proposed policies, projects, or changes through consultations, surveys, and online forums.
Stay Informed: Follow local news, subscribe to city newsletters, and check your city’s website regularly for updates and opportunities to engage.
For government to be truly accessible, information must be communicated clearly. The Plain Writing Act of 2010 requires federal agencies to use plain language, and this principle is crucial at the local level as well. Plain language is clear communication that the public can easily understand and use.
When local governments use jargon-free language, provide information in accessible formats (including for people with disabilities, as emphasized by Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act), and actively promote civic education, they empower all residents to participate more fully in shaping their communities. Effective SEO practices for government websites also play a role, ensuring that official information is easily found and accessed by citizens seeking it.
Understanding your local government structure is the first step toward becoming an effective advocate for your community. Whether your city operates under a council-manager system with its professional administration, or a mayor-council system with its familiar separation of powers, knowing how decisions are made and who makes them puts you in a better position to influence those decisions and hold your leaders accountable.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.
