Separation, Fusion, Inversion: The 'City Manager' Post in Geneva City Government

The phrase, separation of powers, sometimes known as checks and balances, refers to a way of limiting the power of government in a democracy. The way it works is, first, to divide government into branches; and, then, to assign particular duties and powers to each branch in such a way that each branch has some say in (or oversight of) what the other branches may do. Democracies generally feature the separation of powers to protect the freedom of their citizens. (Basic background on this topic may be found here and here.)

Various state and city charters follow the lead of the US Constitution in dividing government into three branches: executive, legislative and judicial. The executive branch carries out laws; the legislative makes laws; the judicial interprets laws. An example of checks and balances where one branch may limit the power of another would be the executive’s ability to veto and the legislature’s ability to override a veto.

The phrase, fusion of powers, refers to a democratic system where one branch, normally the legislative branch, is held above the others, and their power is derived from the legislative branch. An example of the fusion of powers would be in the United Kingdom, where Parliament, the elected representatives of the people, chooses the Prime Minister, the head of the executive branch.

It is generally understood in a fusion of powers that the legislative branch is the supreme branch of government. That makes sense because it is the closest to the people and, through direct elections, the most accountable.

But what about the separation of powers in the City of Geneva? The City Charter, which establishes the government of the City [link to City Charter], designates City Council as the legislative branch and the supreme governing body of the City, and the City Manager as the executive branch. The powers of each branch are carefully restricted.

According to the City Charter, Council “shall exercise all powers of legislation.” It is up to City Council to “determine the policies of the City, the execution of which shall be under the direction of the City Manager. Neither the City Council nor any of its members shall exercise any administrative duties.” The Mayor “shall be recognized as the head of the City government, but shall have no administrative powers or duties.” The City Manager “shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the City,” but is appointed by the City Council and is “responsible to the City Council for the administration of all city offices.”

Because the City Manager is appointed by the City Council, the City operates under a fusion of government powers. City Council is the supreme governing body and appoints the chief of the executive branch, the City Manager, yet it has no executive powers of its own.

Council does have the power to investigate the City administration, to compel testimony with subpoenas, demand records, and call in staff to report on issues. Of course, it can also appoint, and re-appoint, the City Manager. Those are checks the legislative branch has on the executive-- watchdog functions, which provide some legislative oversight of the executive. But they are not built in to the system and not exercised in the day-to-day functioning of government. For example, Council does not have an ombudsman for city employees through which concerns about city operations might be directly communicated without the reliance on the City Manager for filtering information to Council.

So, under this system, if there is a weak Mayor, and/or a weak, or uncritical Council (a Council which constantly defers to the City Manager or does not feel qualified to make judgments which are not in line with City staff recommendations), the City Manager may proceed virtually unchecked-- to the point where he/she assumes the position of supreme governing branch. It would then be as if Council were the subordinate of the City Manager. We have coined the phrase, fusion of powers with inversion, to characterize such a situation. It means that there is fusion, but, instead of the legislative branch being the supreme governing body, the executive branch takes on that role.

That would not bode well for democracy. The City Manager is an appointed position which means that it is, by definition, not directly accountable to the people. We’re all familiar with the phrase “the buck stops here.” In our city government, the buck is supposed to stop with the people--as represented by the elected Councilors. When those Councilors give over their turn to an unelected City Manager, they essentially give away the people’s power.

As the City proceeds in its search for a new City Manager it must also seek to correct any inversion in the separation of powers so that open and honest government may be fully restored.