By RUSSELL ARBEN FOX
Insight Kansas
Last month, two Kansas cities made decisions central to their future.
The first city was Prairie Village, a town of barely 20,000 people; the second was Wichita, the largest municipality in the state, with almost 20 times PV’s population. Despite their differences and the many distinct issues in play in both cities, though, their decisions reflect a common argument.
That argument is over city managers.
Hiring a professional manager to handle the executive functions of a city is a common form of urban government, though not the one experienced by the greatest number of Americans. Most larger cities—as well as many smaller ones—have a “strong mayor” system, with voters electing a mayor with authority to deal with the agendas presented by an elected city council, in the same way the legislative and executive branches function on the state and national level. The replacement of that system in many places with one of supposedly apolitical professionalization is over 100 years old—yet challenges to it remain.
Those challenges were on display in a municipal election in Prairie Village. PV’s government includes a traditional elected mayor with veto power, and elected council members representing their constituents’ interests.
But a group of citizens organized under the name PV United had pushed forward a ballot referendum, asking Prairie Village’s residents if they wished to “abandon” their current system. PV United’s official goals, as stated by various supporters, are to reduce the size of the council and move more urban responsibilities over to a “professionally trained and experienced city manager” instead.
Of course, like every other form of government in existence, PV is not lacking in hired staff to research ordinances, administer policies, and enforce laws; they in fact already have someone serving as “city administrator.” But such supporting staff wasn’t enough for PV United; in their view, a “professionally run city” would ideally have a “council-mayor-manager” system instead.
That ballot referendum lost badly. The defeat was likely more about stopping various political and business actors who opposed easier zoning changes and civic development plans than it was about government, but given that strong mayor systems arguably handle matters pertaining to growth and diversity more positively than council-manager ones, the vote remains relevant.
By contrast, Wichita’s decision—made by city leaders, rather than voters—was to maintain their council-manager system of government, as their city manager of 17 years is retiring. His unusually long tenure had garnered much praise, but also controversy, and when he announced his plans months ago, there were some suggestions (including an entire podcast series) that it was time for Wichita to debate the representativeness, and effectiveness, of continuing with a system that nominally (though rarely actually) tries to leaves politics out of city decisions.
Such conversations never truly took place, however—and, with almost no citizen input, just before Thanksgiving the Wichita City Council decided upon their new city manager.
The vote to do so wasn’t unanimous, however, with councilmembers and others alleging interference with the hiring committee, misrepresentation of priorities, frustration over the only local (and only non-white) finalist dropping out without explanation, and more. In other words, some serious political complaints were made—but which now have no real political route forward.
The point is not that the decision of Prairie Village voters was obviously correct, or that the decision made by Wichita’s current leadership obviously wasn’t. It is simply that this supposedly boring argument over government structure isn’t going away. So perhaps talking more explicitly and openly about these decisions, and the motivations behind them, would be a good idea.
Dr. Russell Arben Fox teaches politics at Friends University in Wichita.