Russell Arben Fox’s recent column, "Questions for, and about, city managers in Kansas,” raises timely and important points about how our cities are governed.
As a civic-minded Kansan and a retired city manager, I appreciate his reminder that debates over the council-manager form of government are neither trivial nor temporary. I write to offer historical context on why the city manager profession emerged more than a century ago and to address the concerns he raises about democracy, accountability, and effectiveness.
The council-manager model took shape during the Progressive Era, when many American cities were plagued by corruption, patronage, and inefficiency.
Reformers believed that trained, nonpartisan administrators could manage public services more honestly and effectively than political machines. This belief led the National Civic League and what is now the International City/County Management Association to publish the first Model City Charter in 1915, introducing a system in which an elected council sets policy and a professional manager executes it.
Early adopters reported immediate improvements in fiscal management, service delivery, and ethical integrity. In short, the city manager position was created to clean up city hall and restore public trust.
Over the past century, this system has proven its value. Today, a majority of U.S. cities with populations over 2,500 use the council-manager model, including most communities in Kansas. Here, elected mayors serve as part of the council, while a professional manager oversees day-to-day operations. This structure has helped Kansas cities avoid the hyper-partisanship seen at higher levels of government and focus instead on pragmatic problem-solving.
City managers bring professional training in public administration, finance, and urban policy, and they serve all residents regardless of political affiliation. Their recommendations are grounded in analysis, not political advantage.
Research supports these benefits: one comprehensive study found that cities with council-manager governments have roughly 57 percent fewer corruption convictions than strong-mayor cities. Public trust is also higher at the local level than at the federal or state level, due in part to the nonpartisan, professional nature of council-manager governance.
Professor Fox raises an important question about democratic accountability: if managers and staff help shape complex policies and budgets, does this create a “democratic deficit”?
It is a reasonable concern, but one that the council-manager system was designed to address. Managers serve entirely at the pleasure of the elected council and can be removed by a simple majority.
The council/commission sets the community’s vision, adopts ordinances and budgets, and represents voter priorities; the manager implements these policies and provides professional options for consideration.
Managers are evaluated—and retained—based on how effectively they carry out the council’s direction. Rather than diluting democracy, this model reinforces it by ensuring that elected officials make policy while administrative professionals carry it out responsibly.
Dr. John Nalbandian of Lawrence captures this balance well: city managers stand “at the intersection of the political and administrative arenas,” helping bridge what is politically acceptable with what is operationally sustainable. This connection strengthens democratic governance by allowing elected leaders to focus on community vision while relying on professional staff to deliver results.
To be sure, supporters of the council-manager model must take citizen engagement seriously. If voters sense that their voices matter less because professionals run daily operations, turnout may suffer.
The solution, however, is greater transparency and more opportunities for public involvement—not abandoning a system that has served Kansas communities well.
Wichita’s recent debate over its manager hiring process demonstrates that residents expect openness, even within a professionally administered government. We should welcome that expectation.
Comparing this model with the strong-mayor system underscores what is at stake. In strong-mayor cities, executive power is concentrated in one elected individual who oversees departments, prepares budgets, and can veto council actions. While this structure can produce decisive leadership, it also allows the city’s priorities—and personnel—to shift dramatically with each new administration.
A strong-mayor model can energize a community when leadership is sound, but when it is not, the consequences can be destabilizing. Numerous cities that experienced turbulence or scandal under powerful mayors later added professional oversight or shifted toward council-manager governance. Concentrating executive authority in one office is inherently risky.
Kansas’s experience has shown the advantages of balanced, professional administration. Under home-rule authority, each city chooses its governing structure, and the vast majority have selected the council-manager form. This is because it helps ensure stability, ethical conduct, and long-term planning that transcends election cycles.
Our governing bodies still debate vigorously, but city services remain steady and centered on community needs rather than personal politics. As Fox himself notes, this model “fosters pragmatic governance” in a time when pragmatism is sorely needed.
After ten decades of practice, the council-manager system remains a proven framework that upholds both democratic accountability and professional competence. It was created to curb corruption and improve performance, and those goals are as vital today as they were 100 years ago.
Rather than concentrating power in a single elected executive, we should continue strengthening the partnership between our elected councils and the professional managers who carry out their vision.
Mr. Fox is right that Kansans should regularly examine how we govern ourselves. But before considering a shift to strong-mayor systems, we should recall what the council-manager model was designed to prevent and what it continues to provide: stability, transparency, ethical administration, and a collaborative balance between democratic leadership and professional expertise. Our communities deserve nothing less.
— Jon Quinday,
Russell