The Manager Plan in Maine

Chapter I: Early Manager Adoptions

	Council-Manager Charters
	The Town Meeting Form
	Early Town Meeting - Selectman - Manager Charters
	The 1939 Town Manager Enabling Act

The first Maine municipality to adopt the manager plan was the City of Auburn in 1917. The council-manager charter was drafted by a citizen charter committee. The charter was submitted to, and passed by, the Maine state legislature as a special act (Chapter 201, Private and Special Acts of the Legislature, 1917). While the charter issue seems to have been somewhat overshadowed by the question of whether or not Maine should approve women's suffrage, the Auburn voters approved the new charter in September, 1917 (Lewiston Evening Journal, 1917).

The new charter supplanted a highly partisan, weak mayor-bicameral council form of government that had been in effect since 1868. Under the old charter, 5 aldermen and 15 councilmen were elected annually by ward, and the mayor was elected at large each year. The mayor was legally responsible for the enforcement of laws and supervision of city affairs, but the council supervised city finances and elected city officers, such as the clerk, the treasurer, the tax collector, the auditor, and the assessors. In effect, the mayor was given little authority over city affairs.

Little is written concerning the major issues in the Auburn charter campaign. One source does state: "Corruption was not the only important issue in Auburn" (Wilson & Crowe, 1962, pp. 13 - 14). Concerning several of the early council-manager charter adoptions, O.C. Hormell, Bowdoin College professor and charter consultant, is reported to have remarked: "In practically every place in Maine (the adoption of the manager plan was a reaction) to the spoilsmen who wanted power" (1962, p.14, parenthetical statement added).

It is probable, however, that Auburn's problems were similar to those documented for other Maine cities that later shifted to the council-manager from the weak mayor-council form. These included:

1) the inability of citizens to fix responsibility for municipal actions,

2) inefficiency and lack of economy in municipal operations,

3) little coordination and control of municipal activities,

4) poor handling of city finances, and

5) general citizen dissatisfaction.

The Auburn council-manager charter assimilated ideas of the municipal reform movement of that day with some features of the prior Auburn charter. Municipal reform ideas which were prevalent at the time included: nonpartisan and at-large elections, the small council and short ballot, lengthened terms for councilors, and a single professional manager who was chosen by and served at the pleasure of the council (Willoughby, 1969, pp. 519-534 and Nolting, 1969, pp. 1-16).

The Auburn charter provided for:

1) the election of a five member council on a non-partisan, ward basis for two-year concurrent terms;

2) a mayor, elected at large for a two year term, who was presiding officer of the council and ceremonial head of government but who was given no administrative duties;

3) council appointment of the manager and other key administrative officials; and

4) a manager chosen "on the basis of his executive and administrative qualifications'' who was administrative head of government.

Features retained from the previous Auburn government included: election of councilors by wards, at-large election of the mayor, and council appointment of key administrative officials.

In a 1940 article, Professor Hormell cited a reason why the ward system was retained:

...the (charter) committee believed that the abolition of that system, with a solid French
Canadian fifth ward would result in inevitable defeat (of the charter) at the popular
referendum (Hormell, 1940, p. 650).

Hormell also discussed problems with the application of the charter. There was an apparent tendency for the separately elected mayor to assume administrative responsibilities legally belonging to the manager. It is interesting to note that this trend has been a chronic problem of the council-manager plan. More recently, many communities outside of Maine have strengthened the office of mayor. Second, council appointment of key administrative officials and confirmation of all other managerial appointments meant that administration was not completely under the manager's control.

The manager was given the difficult duty of supervising a large number of subordinates who were subjected to council appointment or confirmation and might recognize loyalty to an influential councilman more than loyalty to the manager (1940).

Part of the problem may have been alleviated in 1967 when the Auburn charter was revised, giving the manager power to appoint key administrative officials, in some instances with council confirmation, in other instances without.

In 1923, Portland, the oldest and largest city in Maine, became the second city to adopt a council-manager charter. Since 1832, Portland had operated under a weak mayor-council form, much like the previously discussed 19th century Auburn city government except that Portland had a unicameral 12-member board of aldermen, nine members elected by ward and three members elected at large. Wilson and Crowe summarize the Portland council-manager charter campaign as follows:

Portland represented the real old fashioned reform. Here, interested businessmen and other public spirited citizens formed a group, later called the Committee of One Hundred, to do something about the corruption and maladministration that characterized the city's government. The Committee's first attempt to secure a council-manager charter failed in 1921, but the closeness of the local referendum encouraged a second, successful try (Wilson & Crowe 1962, p. 14).

The Portland council-manager charter drafting process and campaigns for adoption are documented by Professor Edward F. Dow (Dow, 1940). The 1923 campaign may have been the first organized citizen-oriented public information campaign in the state. The key issues concerned economy and efficiency in government, but the campaign attained national notoriety due to active electioneering by the Ku Klux Klan. Apparently, the Klan favored an at-large system of election to dilute the traditional ward based powers of the Catholics, Jews and French Canadians (Huntington, 1969, p. 8). Another reason reported for Klan support of the council-manager charter was antagonism to the incumbent mayor and "gang" who supported an alternative charter revision which would strengthen the mayor's authority and increase the council size. The new charter was adopted by a 56 percent majority of the voters, but a New York Times editorial is reported to have debunked the Klan's role in this election:

The Portland council-manager charter drew from both the Model City Charter first published in 1915, and the Auburn charter. Five councilors were elected at-large on a non-partisan basis. The council chair was elected by and from the council and served as presiding officer as well as ceremonial head of government. Innovative provisions establishing a proportional representation system of election and providing for the initiative, the referendum and the recall were included. Because proportional representation involved cumbersome vote tabulation techniques, it was abandoned in 1931 in favor of a plurality system. Initiative and referendum provisions have been repealed from the charter but enacted as an ordinance pursuant to the Constitution of the State of Maine, Article IV, Part 3, Section 21.

Like the Auburn charter, the Portland charter provided that the clerk, solicitor, treasurer, tax collector, auditor and other officers be appointed by council. The manager, however, was empowered to appoint, with the consent of council, the public works commissioner, city electrician, police chief, fire chief, secretary to the overseers of the poor as well as other department heads. In addition, the manager was given authority to appoint other employees upon the recommendation of the department heads.

The major defect in the charter, according to Professors Dow and Hormell, was the absence of departmental integration, particularly the failure to provide an integrated department of finance. This was attributed to the attitude of the charter commission that:

The first two Maine council-manager charters appear to have had some impact on the content of many other early council-manager charters that were subsequently adopted. Two elements of this apparent influence are identifiable: the Auburn ward council/elected mayor system and the lack of managerial appointing authority in both Auburn and Portland charters. Four council-manager cities, Belfast, Augusta, Gardiner and Hallowell, followed Auburn in providing that councilors be elected by ward and that a mayor be elected at large. In 1969, Belfast revised its charter to provide that council members be nominated by ward but elected at large. More pervasive in Maine council-manager charters is the requirement that the council, not the manager, appoint other municipal officials such as clerks, solicitors, assessors, tax collectors, treasurers, or auditors who are then responsible to the manager, but as a practical matter may also be responsible to the council which appoints them.

top

Return to Manager Plan Table of Contents

Since colonial times, the town meeting has been the fundamental form of local government in New England. Today in Maine, most cities and towns still operate under the town meeting form of government or a modified version of it. Under the town meeting form, citizens take direct part in municipal law making and in authorizing the levy of taxes. Maine annual town meetings traditionally have been held in March. Special town meetings also may be called from time to time. The major functions of the annual town meeting are: to elect officers, to act on local legislative matters, such as adoption of ordinances, to adopt the town budget and to debate other matters deserving the attention of the town (Dow, 1963, p.. 4).

The executive agency of town government is an elected, part-time board of selectmen having three, five or seven members. Between sessions the board of selectmen interprets the policy set at the town meeting and is assigned numerous duties including: approving all town non-school expenditures, authorizing highway construction and repair, serving as town purchasing agent for non-school items, issuing licenses and overseeing the conduct of all town activities. Often the part-time selectmen also serve as town assessors, overseers of the poor as well as road commissioners. Generally, there are other elected town officers whose duties are specified in law. These may include: clerk, assessors, tax collector, treasurer, school committee, constables, and others.

Over the years, the town meeting form has been criticized for several reasons. One reason cited is that growing citizen apathy and failure to participate in an institution premised on democratic participation have resulted in policy decisions made by only a few of the town's citizens, particularly those who have a personal interest in the particular policy under consideration (Stitely, 1964). Conversely, in larger towns there may be difficulties in operating a town meeting when a large group of citizens does attend. In addition, there is the question as to whether a town meeting is capable of adequately deliberating town financial matters due to the increasing complexity and magnitude of town budgets (Bonsey, 1967, p. 11).

There also are concerns about the effective administration of town government under a part-time, plural executive body, the selectmen. Professor Dow wrote:

As an executive body they are hampered because:

(1) they lack clear-cut authority over other town officials, many of whose duties and powers are laid down by law;

(2) no board can act as a true executive because it is many-headed, all members having equal power;

(3) it is a part-time board;

(4) the members are amateurs at least until they gain experience (1963, p. 4).

Professor Hormell, in his classic study of Maine towns (Hormell, 1932, pp. 17-25), cited the following three devices used to modify the town meeting form to correct some of these difficulties.

Finance, warrant or budget committee. First adopted in Maine by Brunswick in 1902, the finance committee is a number of elected or appointed citizens who either participate in budget preparation or investigate a proposed town budget and thereby make recommendations on the budget to the town meeting. The use of the finance committee device has been widespread in Maine.

The limited or representative town meeting. Basically, the limited town meeting consists of persons elected from each of several districts to attend the town meeting. Any voter may speak at the town meeting but only the elected representative may vote. The limited town meeting was adopted by three Maine towns: Sanford, Old Orchard Beach and Caribou. Today only Sanford continues the limited town meeting. The finance committee and the limited town meeting approaches in part have been efforts to surmount mechanical and deliberative problems with the town meeting. Neither materially improves day-to-day town administration.

The manager plan. Under the manager plan, the board of selectmen hires a qualified full-time manager to administer the various duties of the board. The manager serves at the pleasure of the selectmen and may be given authority to appoint other personnel of the town. The manager plan has been widely adopted in Maine as a means to provide some central direction and control of town affairs. In many towns, it has been combined with the finance committee device.

top

Return to Manager Plan Table of Contents

In 1927, the town of Camden adopted a special charter and became the first Maine town to apply the manager concept to the town meeting-selectmen framework. For two years prior to the adoption of the charter, Camden had experimented with a town agent appointed by the selectmen and serving in various capacities as designated by the selectmen. (See the following discussion of the town agent.)

Early interest of Camden residents in manager government apparently stemmed from dissatisfaction with the cost and performance of town services under the selectmen. A news story attributes particular disenchantment with snow removal and sewer maintenance services. It charged that the town horses had spent most of the year in their stalls while a huge backlog of grading and filling remained to be done (Forster, 1925).

In February, 1924, Ralph O. Brewster -- a prominent member of the Portland Committee of 100 and a former state senator destined to be elected governor in 1925 --addressed the Camden Board of Trade on the workings of the council-manager plan in Portland (Forster, 1925). Subsequently, the president of the Board of Trade suggested an experiment with a seven-member board of selectmen which would hire a manager. There was editorial support for this approach by the Camden Herald (Forster, 1925), and items were inserted in the town meeting warrant to establish a town agent to be appointed by the selectmen and to function pursuant to rules established by the board of selectmen (Forster, 1926). After two years of success under the agent, the town ratified a special act of the legislature which made the selectmen-manager system permanent.

The Camden charter vested the administration of the town (except school matters) in a seven-member board of selectmen, elected at large. The selectmen serve as overseers of the poor and road commissioners. Also elected are a clerk, treasurer, collector of taxes, assessors, auditor and a school committee. The selectmen appoint a manager who in turn appoints other town employees, subject to confirmation by the board of selectmen.

The manager is administrative head of town government, responsible to the selectmen for the administration of all departments under its control. The manager's duties include: acting as purchasing agent, seeing that laws and ordinances are enforced, making appointments and removals, and fixing the compensation of appointees. From 1927 to 1939, eleven other Maine towns adopted special act town meeting-selectmen-manager charters similar to the Camden charter.

In 1939, Houlton voters adopted a special act of the legislature which established the town meeting-council-manager form of government. Previously, in 1934, Houlton voters turned down a similar charter. The adoption of the 1939 version was preceded by a highly organized public information campaign under Chamber of Commerce auspices. Campaign techniques utilized included: 1) filing citizen petitions with the legislature to lend support to the passage of the special act charter, 2) organizing a "Committee of 100," representative of over 25 local organizations, to actively campaign for adoption of the charter, and 3) providing complimentary transportation of voters to the polls (Forster, 1939). It provided for the election at large of a seven-member council vested with powers of selectmen, overseers of the poor, and assessors. In 1943, a unique feature was added to the charter. The council was vested with power to enact "such ordinances as are authorized by Chapter 80 of the Revised Statutes...under such rules and procedures as the voters of the Town of Houlton may legally adopt" (Houlton Charter, Section 6). This was the first transfer of the ordinance power from the town meeting to the council in a Maine municipality which still retained the town meeting. The town council appointed the clerk, treasurer, tax collector and health officer. The manager was designated as road commissioner and purchasing agent and was responsible for the administration of all departments.

top

Return to Manager Plan Table of Contents

The 1939 town manager enabling act undoubtedly stimulated the popularization of the manager plan in Maine. It authorized towns and plantations to vote at town meetings to employ a town manager, independently or in union with another town, without the necessity of obtaining a special act charter from the legislature. The act was general enough to give the town broad discretion in assigning duties to the manager.

The act provided that the manager be appointed by the selectmen on the basis of executive and administrative qualifications. The manager was administrative head of government for all departments under the selectmen, unless otherwise provided. Under the act, the manager's duties included:

1) law and ordinance enforcement,

2) purchasing for all town departments except schools,

3) attending selectmen meetings,

4) recommending the adoption of measures beneficial to the town,

5) keeping selectmen and citizens informed as to the town's financial condition, and

6) attending to other duties assigned by the selectmen.

As of 1991, over 110 towns have adopted the town meeting-selectmen-manager form pursuant to this act or an amended version thereof.

top

Return to Manager Plan Table of Contents