Seismic shake-up at City Hall? Tacoma’s form of government could shift under proposal
Critics of Tacoma’s current form of government have argued that it gives an unelected bureaucrat — the city manager — too much power without accountability. If a recommendation before the City Council holds, that gripe might soon be moot.
City Hall’s structure could change drastically thanks to the once-in-a-decade charter review process. A committee is floating a new “Mayor Council Chief Administrative Officer” form of government, according to its draft report.
The Charter Review Committee has been tasked with suggesting updates to the city’s constitution. Up for debate: expanding term limits for the mayor and City Council, creating an Office of Policing Accountability and opening the door to ranked-choice voting.
After the City Council deliberates on the recommendations, voters will weigh in during the November election.
Grit City is one of 54 Washington metros that uses a council-manager form of government, according to the Seattle-based nonprofit Municipal Research and Services Center. Detractors often dislike how much sway is vested in the city manager while the mayor serves in a somewhat ceremonial position.
The deadline for the committee’s recommendations to the City Council is Tuesday, although Chair Stephen Wamback told The News Tribune that they are set for a Monday presentation.
Under this proposal, the City Council by 2027 would shrink from nine members to seven, including two at-large positions, Wamback said. Executive authority would be held by an elected mayor, who would team up with the council to hire a chief administrative officer. The CAO would then report to both the council and mayor.
Cities that use a chief administrative officer include Renton and Portland.
“The CAO generally is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the mayor, with the thinking being that while the mayor is elected to hold executive power, the actual day-to-day running of city government is best handled by a professional administrator,” Wamback said.
The committee is also recommending that City Council be allowed to serve full time, hire staff and impeach the mayor.
Ten committee members voted in favor of the proposal, according to the draft report. Three people opposed, including Wamback, and another was absent.
“The Council, currently unable to hire its own staff, is highly dependent on the manager’s staff to propose ordinances,” the draft report states in the recommendation’s rationale. “The manager then implements passed ordinances with little opportunity for public input. Tacomans deserve the chance to vote for an accountable executive. It’s time to put mayor-council-CAO on the ballot and let the voters decide.”
Naysayers, meanwhile, view the switch as largely unnecessary: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Charter Review Committee mulls change of Tacoma government
The council-manager form of government is “set up to be the professionalization of urban governance,” said Mark Pendras, an associate professor at the University of Washington Tacoma’s School of Urban Studies.
“The original intent of a council-manager form of government, in addition to just the expertise in the executive management, was to remove some element of political influence in the governance of cities,” he said.
The Charter Review Committee’s proposal received mixed reactions during the public comment section of an April 18 meeting at City Hall. Barbara Church backed the recommendation, arguing that the “unelected city manager has too much power” and that the city government’s current form isn’t adequately transparent.
Some want to stick with the council-manager system. Rosemary Powers told the review committee that the Tacoma-Pierce County League of Women Voters has backed it since the 1950s, and that it was meant to quell corruption and boost accountability.
“If the Charter Review Committee moves forward with the proposed amendment for a mayor-council or strong-mayor form, even with the checks and balances included in the amendment,” Powers said, “success will still require a council with strong voices willing to take difficult decisions and positions, and seek broad consensus.”
While some of how the proposal would work remains unclear, the municipal shake-up would likely make for uncertain political terrain. Council-manager systems make it harder to be “nimble and flexible,” Pendras said.
“I think the desire for a strong-mayor system is to be able to move more quickly to pursue new ideas in new directions,” Pendras said. “That has strengths, but that has weaknesses: There are benefits to moving slowly so that you don’t mess things up too badly, too quickly.”
This story was originally published May 3, 2024 at 10:00 AM.
