Manning, J. W.

English

University of Kentucky

Kentucky Law JournalVolume 20 | Issue 4 Article 71932Proposed Legislation: City Manager Legislation inKentuckyJ. W. ManningUniversity of KentuckyFollow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/kljPart of the Legislation Commons, and the State and Local Government Law CommonsRight click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefitsyou.This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kentucky LawJournal by an authorized editor of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact UKnowledge@lsv.uky.edu.Recommended CitationManning, J. W. (1932) "Proposed Legislation: City Manager Legislation in Kentucky," Kentucky Law Journal: Vol. 20 : Iss. 4 , Article 7.Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj/vol20/iss4/7KFNTuCKY LAw JOURNALthe Ohio State University; Ph. D. 1931, Ohio State University; chair-man of the Department of Social Sciences, Teachers College of Kansas.Charles G. Haglund, A. B., LL. B., University of South Dakota;A . M. 1920, Harvard University; J. D. 1914, Yale University; formerlyAssociate Professor of Law, University of Wyoming Law School; mem-ber of North Dakota and South Dakota Bar Associations.PROPOSED LEGISLATIONCITY M NAGER LEGISLATION IN- KENTUCKYThe city manager movement had its beginning in Kentuckyin 1928. At that time a well-directed and concerted drive by thevarious chambers of commerce and other civic organizations inthe cities of the second and third classes, resulted in the intro-duction and subsequent passage of two city manager enablingacts by the General Assembly of that year-one for second classand one for third class cities.These acts' provided that any city of the second or thirdclass might submit to the voters the proposition whether itwished to be governed under the council-manager form of gov-ernment, and if the majority vote was affirmative the commis-sioners and the mayor should then select a manager who shouldhold his position at the will of the board. These acts would havemade possible a true city manager government by designatingthe city manager the administrative head of the city, by allow-ing him freedom in the exercise of his administrative functions,by making his executive and administrative qualifications thesole basis for his selection, and by not limiting his residence tothe city or state.In November 1928, the manager form was adopted by thevoters in Covington, Lexington, and Owensboro, and if it hadnot been for a determined opposition, all three cities would havejoined the ranks of the more than 400 manager cities of theUnited States on January 1, 1931. But, unfortunately thislegislation was ill-starred, and opposition quickly developedwhich led to a contest of the law relating to third class cities inthe Court of Appeals. The law was attacked on three grounds:first, that it was in conflict with Sections 23, 107, and 160 of'Chapters 84 and 78, Acts of 1928.PRoPosED LEGISLATIONthe Constitution; and second that it was contrary to Section 51.2The first three sections provided that no office shall be created towhich a person can be appointed for other than a definite term,that the term of elected or appointed ministerial or executiveofficers shall not exceed four years, and that no "mayor or chiefexecutive or fiscal officer of any city of the first or second class"shall succeed himself in office; and Section 51 provides that anylaw enacted by the General Assembly shall cover only one sub-ject which must be expressed in its title. After construingliberally all points relative to the manager form of government,the court voided the statute in question upon the technicalgrounds that it contained more than one subject, in violation ofSection 51 of the Constitution.3This decision merely had the effect of retarding managergovernment in Kentucky two years. Immediately the advocatesof the plan marshalled their forces in an effort to have thelegislature pass a bill which would be free from the defects ofthe 1928 measure. Their hopes were realized when the legislaturepassed such a bill and it became law on June 18, 1931. Thisact, however, applies only to second class cities; Lexington,Covington, and Newport are operating at present under thislaw, and Ashland has voted to come under the operation of thelaw on January 1, 1934.For second class cities, this law is all an advocate ofmanager government could desire, but its scope is ratherrestricted. The publicity given the accomplishments of citymanager government in Lexington and Covington has beenresponsible for numerous efforts to make this new form possiblein all the cities of the state. Investigation will reveal the factthat the city manager has been more successful in cities offrom 8,000 to 15,000 than in the larger cities and thus it isurged that the medium size cities of Kentucky be given theopportunity to adopt this improved form of government. Ofcourse no attempt at compulsion has been suggested, butmerely that cities be permitted to change to city managership ifthey so desire.To this end, a city manager enabling act-House Bill num-2"The City Manager in Kentucky," by Roy E. Owsley, Nat. Mun.Rev., XX:134, March, 1931.$City of Owensboro v. Hazel, 229 Ky. 752, 17 S. W. (2d) 1031.KENTUCKY LAw JOuRNALber 475-has been introduced in the 1932 General Assembly ofKentucky by Representative Fentress of Muhlenberg County,which if passed will enable cities of the fourth class--,000 to8,000-to adopt a city manager form of government. Thismeasure is a step in the right direction, and must be recom-mended, even though it does not go as far as some city managerproponents would suggest. Since city manager government hasproved successful in cities and towns with populations rangingfrom 222 to nearly one million, there is no real reason why allthe cities and towns of Kentucky should not be permitted toadopt this innovation in city government.The bill as introduced in the General Assembly will notprovide the best form of city manager government, but it will bean attempt in the right direction. The proposed law fails to bea full-fledged city manager law in four respects. First, it doesnot provide for non-partisan elections for councilmen, which allauthorities on city managership strongly recommend. In thesecond place the law states that the Mayor as provided for bySection 160 of the Constitution shall be the city manager,appointed by the council. When appointed, he must possess nogreater qualifications as to residence of the city or state thanare expressly required by the Constitution. In this regard itdoes not follow the law now in force for second class cities,which expressly states that there shall be a mayor and commis-sioners elected by the people, and these officials shall select acity manager without regard to residence. In the third place,instead of providing an indefinite term of office for the manager,making him removable at all times by the council, the law statesthat he shall hold office for four years, subject of course, toremoval for cause. This is not the best form of city managergovernment, in that it does not guarantee the desirable andnecessary element of responsibility of the manager to the council.In the fourth place, the law distinctly calls the mayor-manageran official and not an employee, which in the light of thedecision of the Court of Appeals in 1928, means that the con-stitutional salary limitation would apply to a city managerappointed under authority of the proposed law.On the other hand, however, the proposed measure doespurport to be a bona fide manager law. It provides for theelection of the manager by the council, and his responsibilityPROPOSED LEGISLATIOto that body. Also it provides that he shall be chosen solely onthe basis of his executive and administrative qualifications. Inaddition it is provided that he shall be responsible for theadministration, with power to appoint and remove subordinateofficials without the consent of the council. The manager,under the proposed law, would be a full-time official, devotingall of his time to the affairs of the city, and engaging in noother business or profession.The advantages of the city manager plan are obvious to anybusiness man. If we admit that the city is a business corpora-tion, or is coming to be such an enterprise, we must admit thata business form of government is needed for such a unit. Thecity manager plan provides a complete analogy to a businesscorporation. In a business enterprise there are three parts-thestockholders, the board of directors, and the business manager.A city's government under the manager plan has three parts-the voters or the stockholders, the council or the board of direc-tors, and the city manager or the business manager. In practiceas well as theory, the mind of man has not invented a scheme ofgovernment which surpasses the manager form. It has thedistinct advantage of providing a separation of functions witha unification of powers.The city manager form of government is beyond the experi-mental stage. Its value has been demonstrated over and overagain, and no city has anything to fear by reason of its adoption.While it would be desirable that an all-inclusive and bona fidemanager enabling act be enacted by the General Assembly, allproponents of good government should lend their support to themeasure now before the legislature, with the idea of course, ofusing this as an entering wedge or a place from which to springto something better.J. W. M&NwmG, Political Science Dept.University of Kentucky.

Proposed Legislation: City Manager Legislation in Kentucky

https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4814&amp;context=klj

Proposed Legislation: City Manager Legislation in Kentucky

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Kentucky