Is the City Manager Model Starting to Break down?

As political dynamics accelerate, the role of the city manager is being tested in ways the profession can no longer ignore.

Written by Chris Mann, City Manager of Wildomar, California, and host of the Gov360 podcast.

A respected city manager with more than three decades of experience was recently let go.

No scandal.

No ethics issues.

No performance problems.

The council changed.

Situations like this are becoming more common. And they raise a question that would have been difficult to imagine even a decade ago:

Is the city manager model starting to break down?

At the same time, structural conversations are emerging in some of the largest local governments in California. In Los Angeles County, voters have approved a shift away from professional management toward an elected chief executive. In San Diego County, similar discussions are beginning to take shape.

These are not isolated developments. They reflect a broader shift in the environment surrounding local government leadership.

To understand what is happening, it helps to step back.

The Model Was Built to Solve Real Problems

The council-manager form of government did not emerge as theory. It was a response to dysfunction.

In the early twentieth century, many cities were dominated by political machines. Hiring decisions, contracts, and operational priorities were often shaped by loyalty rather than competence. Reformers sought a structure that would bring discipline and expertise into municipal operations.

In 1908, the city of Staunton, Virginia implemented what is widely considered the first modern council-manager government in the United States. A few years later, the model gained national attention when Dayton, Ohio adopted the council-manager system in 1913 following a catastrophic flood that forced the city to rethink its governance structure.

The solution was straightforward. Elected officials would set policy and represent the public. Professional managers would oversee administration and implement that policy. This separation created clarity. It allowed cities to benefit from both democratic representation and professional management.

Over time, the model proved effective. It strengthened financial systems, improved service delivery, and introduced long-term planning into local government operations. Today, it remains the dominant form of municipal governance in the United States. Especially so in California, where over 90% of the State's 483 cities operate under the model.

That level of adoption is not incidental. It reflects a system that has worked.

What Has Changed

The value of professional administration has not diminished. The environment surrounding it has evolved.

Political cycles have accelerated. Council turnover is more frequent. Institutional memory resets more quickly. Public expectations for responsiveness and visibility have intensified. Narratives now form and spread at a pace that compresses decision-making timelines.

In that environment, the traditional balance between politics and administration becomes more difficult to maintain. Professional managers are still expected to remain neutral. They are still expected to deliver results. But they are now operating in a system where perception and communication influence outcomes more directly than before.

This creates a new kind of exposure. Competence remains necessary, but is no longer sufficient on its own.

When Governance Structures Come Under Review

The conversations unfolding in Los Angeles County and San Diego County point to a deeper dynamic.

Scale changes expectations. Large and complex public organizations often generate pressure for visible executive leadership. In the private sector, organizations of comparable size typically have a clearly identifiable chief executive. Some reform advocates argue that government should follow a similar model. An elected executive offers clarity and direct accountability. Voters know who is in charge. They can reward or replace that individual at the ballot box.

Professional administration offers something different. It provides continuity, technical expertise, and a degree of insulation from political volatility. It allows complex systems to be managed with long-term perspective.

Both approaches carry strengths. Both involve tradeoffs.

What we are seeing now is not a sudden rejection of professional management. It is a reassessment taking place in a more visible and accelerated environment.

The Risk of Misreading the Moment

Periods of change often produce strong reactions.

Some will interpret these developments as evidence that the city manager model is losing relevance. Others will respond by doubling down on traditional definitions of neutrality, assuming that distance from politics will provide stability. Neither response fully captures what is happening.

The model is not under pressure because it has failed. It is under pressure because the context in which it operates has changed. When leaders respond to a changing environment with static assumptions, the gap between expectation and reality widens.

The challenge is not to defend the model reflexively. It is to understand the conditions under which it must now operate.

What This Moment Requires from Leaders

This environment calls for a more intentional form of leadership.

Technical competence remains foundational. But it must be paired with relational awareness and strategic communication. Leaders must be attentive not only to the substance of decisions, but also to how those decisions are understood.

This does not require partisanship or abandoning neutrality. It requires discipline.

Leaders must engage earlier with governing bodies. They must invest in relationships before friction emerges. They must anticipate how issues may be interpreted and provide clarity before narratives solidify.

In practical terms, that means making relationship stewardship a regular discipline rather than an informal assumption. It means checking alignment before tension appears, not after. It means pre-briefing more thoroughly on issues that carry emotional or political weight. It means asking not only whether a recommendation is correct, but also how it is likely to land with elected officials and the public.

It also means developing greater narrative awareness. Facts still matter, but facts do not always speak for themselves in a compressed environment. If a decision can be easily mischaracterized, leaders should clarify early, calmly, and with precision. Silence may still be appropriate at times, but it should be intentional rather than automatic.

The work itself has not changed. The context around the work has.

For a deeper dive on specific, actionable steps that local government professionals can take to adjust to the modern reality, watch Episode 20 of Gov360 titled, "Competence Is No Longer Enough: The Quiet Shift in Local Government Leadership."

The Role of the Profession

There is also a broader responsibility that extends beyond individual leaders.

When governance structures are reconsidered, the profession has a role in helping communities understand the value of professional administration.

That value is not abstract.

It is reflected in stable financial systems, consistent service delivery, and the ability to manage complex public organizations over time. It is reflected in the separation of political decision-making from operational control.

If that value is not clearly articulated, it becomes easier to overlook. And when it is overlooked, it becomes more vulnerable to replacement.

This is where the profession itself must become more intentional. Organizations like the International City/County Management Association have historically served as stewards of the council–manager form. ICMA has defined ethical standards, supported professional development, and reinforced the norms that separate governance from administration. That role is still essential, but the current moment calls for more than stewardship. It calls for visible leadership and more direct engagement.

The pressures facing the profession are not theoretical. They are playing out in real time through structural reforms, shifts in governance models, and growing skepticism about whether traditional administrative neutrality can hold in a more politicized environment. The conversation about governance is not happening in academic settings. It is happening at council daises, in charter review committees, and in public debates where elected officials are weighing structural changes in real time. In that context, the profession cannot afford to be reactive or overly cautious in defending its value. It should be shaping the conversation.

That means more clearly articulating, in plain terms, why professional management produces better outcomes for communities. It means engaging in public-facing education when governance models are debated. It means equipping local leaders with the language and frameworks to explain not just what they do, but why it matters.

It may also mean reexamining how the profession presents itself. If expectations around leadership are evolving, the profession should be willing to acknowledge that reality and provide guidance on how to operate effectively within it, without compromising core principles.

None of this requires abandoning neutrality. But it does require recognizing that neutrality does not mean invisibility. If the profession does not define its role in this moment, others will define it instead. And they may not define it in a way that preserves what has made it effective for more than a century.

The Long View

The council-manager model has endured for more than a century because it addressed real governance challenges.

Those challenges still exist. Cities remain complex. Public services remain demanding. Communities still depend on capable and ethical leadership. The potential for corruption, favoritism, and the steering of public contracts to friends and insiders still exists. Those pressures may take different forms today, but they have not gone away.

What is changing is the environment in which that leadership operates.

This is not a moment for retreat. It is a moment for clarity. Professionalism remains the standard. Ethics remain non-negotiable. Competence remains essential. But in a faster and more visible political environment, those qualities must be paired with awareness, engagement, and intentional communication.

The model is not breaking down. It is being tested. And how the profession responds will determine whether it endures or is gradually replaced.

---

If this reflection resonates with you, I invite you to explore more leadership insights, resources, and long-form content at www.chrismann.us, and to watch or listen to the full Gov360 Episode 21, where these concepts are explored in greater depth.

---

About the Author

Chris Mann serves as City Manager for the City of Wildomar, California. He writes about leadership, governance, and the realities of public service in local government and hosts the Gov360 podcast.