To allow easy distinction between fact and opinion this report has been divided into parts based on the above questions. Specifically the first section will present the definitions of a strong-mayor system, the middle sections cover arguments for and against it (as it relates to the concerns of business), and the closing sections present the author’s conclusions and analysis regarding strong-mayor leadership and its effect on business.

Strong-mayor Form Of City Government

The first question people inevitably ask regarding the strong-mayor system of government is “what is it?” While the answer varies from city to city, a generic strong-mayor form of government essentially puts the central executive powers of city leadership and management in the hands of one, elected, individual. A strong-mayor is very akin to the President of the United States.

A strong-mayor serves as political and civic leader of the city. The mayor does not, in most cases, actually run the day-to-day operations of the city. The mayor appoints heads of departments, can veto city council legislation, and proposes legislation. The Spokane strong-mayor initiative also allows the mayor to hire an “administrative officer to assist in supervising the administrative offices” (Coalition for a New Spokane). See Table 1 for a more detailed description of the Spokane strong-mayor initiative (Mulady).

Spokane’s Strong-Mayor Initiative

•The city manager position would be eliminated.

•The City Council still would have seven members. Instead of the mayor, a council president would preside over meetings, so there would be eight elected city officials instead of seven.

•The mayor could hire a chief administrative officer, who could earn 110 percent of the salary of the next-highest-paid employee besides the mayor.

•The mayor could veto ordinances passed by the council, but the council could overturn vetoes with a majority plus one.

•The mayor could fire department heads, including the city clerk and city attorney, without consulting the council. Appointments would need council approval.

•The mayor would be elected at-large every four years and earn $80,000 a year or the same salary as the highest-paid department head, whichever is higher. The mayor currently makes $36,000 a year.

•The council president would be elected at-large and earn $22,500 a year, while salaries of the other six council members would stay at $18,000 a year.

•There is some question about when the first mayor would be elected under the strong-mayor system. The city attorney's office has said it would be November 2001, while the initiative's author says November 2000.

Table 1

How the strong-mayor initiative will change Spokane city government

So while there is a “strong,” central leader under the strong-mayor form of city government, there remains a separation of powers as well as checks and balances. This is in contrast to the city manager form (Spokane’s old system), also known as the council-manager form, which intended to separate politics from management, and “promote economy and efficiency through professional management” (MRSC). Now that we have an understanding of the basic principle of a strong-mayor, examination should be made as to its origins in Spokane and look at a sample structure of an actual strong-mayor government.

History of Strong-mayor in Spokane

In the early 1990s there was an attempt by leaders in both Spokane city and county government to merge the two into one Spokane county government. Despite the failure of this attempt many activists and community leaders were still hoping to transform Spokane government. In 1996 the Coalition for a New Spokane[1] began collecting signatures for a strong-mayor and council-by-district initiative in Spokane. The strong-mayor issue was put to a vote that same year and failed to pass. Both strong-mayor and council-by-district initiatives reappeared as separate ballot measures in 1999 and both were passed.

The driving forces behind the strong-mayor and council by district initiatives was a coalition of political activists and developers/businessmen and businesswomen who believed a change in city government was necessary to promote civic and economic growth. On a bit more political note, many of the activists (both political and business) who worked for the strong-mayor initiative were very critical opponents of the incumbent city government. They believed power in the city was monopolized by a small group of political and business leaders who often usurped public input in favor of their own projects and initiatives.

Organizational Structure of a Sample Strong-Mayor Government

The city of Topeka, Kansas – 1990 population of 119,883 (U.S. Census Bureau) - currently has a strong-mayor system of government. It’s organizational structure is depicted in Chart 1 and is a good visual example of how a city with a strong-mayor government is organized.

Note how the mayor’s executive department and the city council reside on the same level in this chart. There is a mystique that strong-mayors have absolute power over an entire city. This is very similar to the common misconception that the President of the United States can declare war without the approval of congress. While the mayor retains many executive powers, he or she must sill consult with the city council and receive its approval.

Strong-Mayor Government of Topeka, Kansas

Chart 1
Organizational structure of the city government of Topeka, Kansas

“STRONG MAYOR FOR A STRONG SPOKANE”

“In today's global economy, life moves at a much faster clip, and our hometown problems have mushroomed. We need a system of government that can respond quickly to those changes and compete in a bigger world market” (“City's ready to trade up to strong mayor”). So said Cincinnati Enquirer editorial writer Cliff Radel in his support for that city’s strong-mayor initiative in 1999. Strong-mayor advocates no longer argue solely on the basis of civic accountability but rather on economic necessity. The theory being since strong, successful companies (large and small) require strong, entrepreneurial leadership so does a city.

Several Spokane-area businesses evidently agree that a new leadership structure is essential for future economic growth in Spokane. The top five campaign donors to the 1999 elections were (Camden):

Metropolitan Mortgage
Bernard Daines (Spokane-area high tech businessman)
Spokane Home Builders
Harlan Douglas (major Spokane property owner and developer)
Avista Corp.

Of those top five contributors only Avista was supporting incumbents and foes of the strong-mayor initiative. So how does the strong-mayor initiative create a “better” business climate? Only time will reveal the true results, but the theory is based on the assertion that Spokane is stuck in an economic rut.

Spokane has long had a reputation as a good place to live and raise a family, but a bad place to grow a thriving business. A Forbes magazine article recently rated Spokane 161 out of 162 “Hot” places in the U.S. to do business (Ferguson). The Forbes survey was heavily weighted towards high-tech business, a field Spokane is not traditionally strong in, but strong-mayor advocates argue that is the whole point of the problem. Spokane’s current government is too caught in an antiquated system, dominated by “old guard” thinking.

A strong-mayor, they argue, will be able to eliminate the red-tape of a more bureaucratic council-manager run city where power is equally divided among council members. A leader with the power to lead is more able to introduce real changes because they are in a better position to ignite such changes.

While the city council still retains many powers, including the power to first vote on issues before they are subject to the mayor’s approval, the mayor becomes a much more visible and active leader in city affairs. Business advocates see the strong-mayor as a way of dragging Spokane out of its stodgy political and economic growth. More businesses will now have reason to take a greater role in city affairs because of the chance for meaningful and real input.

STRONG MAYOR FOES

While advocates tout the benefits of a strong-mayor government its foes point out the weaknesses. Chief among them is the “celebrity mayor syndrome.” A strong-mayor, they argue, would be in political debt to financial backers and political supporters (Camden and Mulady), rather than responsive to the people. Opponents see the strong-mayor initiative as too much power with one person.

This concept leads further into the issue of campaign finance. As evidenced by the recent elections in Spokane, the political dynamics of the city are changing. In the future candidates are going to need a great deal more money and exposure to successfully run for office. “Spending $90,000 to $100,000 for an $18,000-a-year job. Come on,” (Camden and Mulady) city council candidate Al French lamented.

The other argument is that a strong leadership structure does not guarantee a strong leader. Advocates point out that nearly every major metropolitan city in the U.S. has a strong-mayor form of government. While Spokane is a large city, it is not nearly the size of Seattle or New York, and thus has a much smaller base from which to draw qualified candidates who are willing to put up with the political and financial costs of seeking the mayor’s office.

The strong-mayor initiative allows the Mayor to hire and fire a chief or assistant administrative officer that can “assist the mayor, supervise [at] the discretion of the mayor [and] the administrative offices, and perform such other duties as are delegated to the position, from time to time, by the mayor” (Coalition for a New Spokane). Opponents argue that this allows the city to be run by a de-facto city manager, despite the presence of a “strong-mayor.”

Perhaps the biggest dilemma Spokane will face as the result of the strong-mayor is polarization of the business community. Avista Corp. is a prime example. Avista – a Spokane-based Fortune 500 corporation which is currently developing many high-tech startup subsidiaries – invested heavily in city government incumbency. Obviously Avista believed that the current city government gave them the best shot at growing their businesses. The line in the business community is that Avista may see this change of leadership as a sign Spokane is becoming more hostile to business and may move its high-paying subsidiaries out of town. This illustrates the polarization caused by the strong-mayor initiative. Not all local businesses really believe it’s an effective way to grow business.

ANALYSIS

As a preface to this section the reader is reminded that the following analysis is just that, an analysis. It is influenced by opinions regarding the issue and is presented merely in the context of perspective.

What Will a Strong-Mayor Mean to Spokane?

The strong-mayor initiative is a difficult issue to read and analyze. There are no clear cut indicators as to what it will really mean for business and commerce in Spokane. On the one side, a strong-mayor seems to offer the possibility of true leadership that yields concrete results. Citizens and businesses alike have a single person to approach with ideas or issues, rather than just a council committee where no one vote is more important than any other. Of course the mirror to this advantage is the power issue. Is it truly wise to vest that much authority with one person?

What is clear is that Spokane, while it has been making significant strides in remolding its economy to meet the demands of tomorrow, must grow. Just as change for the sake of change is wrong, strict adherence to the old ways simply because they are the old ways is not an effective method for creating prosperity.

Caveat Emptor

The strong-mayor initiative has drawn significant support from local businesses and business leaders who are eager to bring about greater economic prosperity to Spokane. Who can argue with that? What is of some concern are the political mavericks who actually did the grunt work of drafting and advocating the strong-mayor and council-by-district initiatives. Two of these political outsiders – Steve Eugster and Steve Corker – were also elected to the city council and will be responsible for helping to carry out these changes.

Both Eugster and Corker are more known for their challenges of the “status-quo” rather than tested, consensus building skills that are required to effectively work in any democratic political system. Corker is perhaps best known for spearheading an effort to defeat the expansion of Seattle’s Pacific Science Center into RiverFront park. Eugster is a long-time city council critic who has sued the city eighteen times in the past ten years. Many of those cases were to halt public-private partnerships like RiverPark Square. These are hardly the credentials most would expect from visionary architects who are going to help build Spokane’s future.

A Strong Spokane?

The question of whether a strong-mayor will lead to a strong Spokane has yet to be entirely answered. Many argue that a strong-mayor is not enough to stimulate further economic growth. Further reforms must include the creation of a port district in Spokane and unification of city and county government.

However, the idea of a more powerful executive officer, elected by the people and flanked by a legislative body, can be an effective way to bring about change in Spokane. Whether that change is good depends on the outcomes of future political battles yet to be waged.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Since the strong-mayor initiative has passed it cannot be ignored. Change is coming, whether the city is ready or not, and this change must be met with a true conviction to create a better community by all businesses in Spokane. To that end, the following guidelines are recommended for all business owners and leaders in Spokane:

Increase political activity. The old days of Spokane as nothing but a sleepy retirement city are over. The new city government will require input by all interested parties in order to formulate a strategy for meeting the challenges of the future. Businesses that take a passive stance will see their interests and opportunities passed over. This does not have to mean contributing to or sponsoring candidates. It can be as simple as attending city council or committee meetings to create exposure for their business in Spokane.
Build coalitions, and not factions. Many feel the recent elections distinctly defined two factions in Spokane, the critics and the establishment. While there is a certain degree of truth to this, it is not the image Spokane should present. Why should city government work cohesively if local businesses can’t work together. New groups such as Spokane E-Commerce need to be more willing to work with existing groups like the Chamber of Commerce, and vice-versa.
Empower city leadership with meaningful input. The new government should not be used as simply a different forum for complaint. Complaints should be accompanied by ideas, critically thought out, which can help government formulate fertile and meaningful solutions to Spokane’s problems. Businesses need to lobby with an eye towards the public, as the city must sell their proposals and ideas to the public.

Of course, the strong-mayor initiative alone will not determine the economic future of Spokane and its businesses. It will, however, play a key role in constructing the foundation Spokane business will build on into the 21^st century.

[1] Coalition For A New Spokane is a political action group founded by Spokane attorney and political activist Steve Eugster, who was the author of the Spokane strong-mayor initiative and elected to the Spokane city council in 1999.