It is likely that most members of ICMA are familiar with the Code of Ethics and its requirement that we defend the core principles of the council-manager form of government by resisting the infringement of political considerations into what should be impartial professional decisions.

Specifically, Tenet 10 states: “Oppose efforts to interfere with professional responsibilities by consistently executing official duties, policies, and processes with an unwavering commitment to unbiased public service.” 

Additionally, Tenet 11 states: “Manage all personnel matters with fairness and impartiality.” I note Tenet 11 in addition to Tenet 10 since attempted political interference in personnel matters is, unfortunately, an all too common challenge faced by managers.

But are we just as attentive to ensuring that the rightful policy-making power of elected officials isn’t excessively limited by our own actions or those of our staff? Are we as quick to defend the policy-making authority of elected officials as we are to defend our managerial authority?

It is difficult to draw a clear line between where administrative/managerial authority ends and policy-making authority begins. And while there are some gray areas, there are also clear distinctions between the two.

While we ask our elected officials to restrain themselves from involvement in purely administrative/management matters, are we as careful in restraining ourselves and our staff from wandering into policy matters that are the purview of elected officials? Tenet 5 speaks to the role of professional managers to “submit proposals” (i.e., make recommendations when appropriate) and provide facts and professional advice. Tenet 6 acknowledges that elected officials are accountable to their communities for the decisions that they make. And Tenet 7 requires that members refrain from political activities that undermine public confidence in professional administrators.

Why can it be difficult at times to restrain ourselves from wandering inappropriately into the policy-making arena? First of all, as previously noted, the boundary between administration and policy making is not always clear. Second, managers do inevitably have an impact on policy decisions through the information provided and the recommendations made. Third, managers and their staff often care deeply about topics under the purview of elected officials. Whether it be land use, housing programs, financial decisions, environmental programs or a whole array of other topics, managers and staff can have strong professional and personal opinions.

At times, managers, as well as staff, can believe that a certain decision is critical to the organization’s or community’s success. They can be justifiably concerned about the impact of the elected body making the “wrong decision.” They may have worked incredibly hard to achieve a certain outcome. They can also succumb to the “end justifies the means” rationalization. And while, hopefully, few in the profession would resort to intentionally misleading the elected officials, it can be tempting to perhaps not provide all viable options lest one of those may sound more appealing. Or perhaps failing to clearly point out potential downsides or risks to the recommended action, therefore making it appear artificially more attractive or less risky. 

Some of these actions can be subtle and not outright misleading. When dealing with a challenging issue of import about which you or staff have a strong view, it is critical to take the time to reflect and confirm that you are not unintentionally biasing the governing boards deliberations by subtleties in regard to how the issue is presented.

It can be extremely challenging to deal with the reality of the governing body making decisions that we believe are unwise for the organization, the community at large, or society in general. Managers and staff members can naturally have strong feelings and opinions on matters coming before their elected bodies. These can relate to strong personal beliefs or professional knowledge, training, and experience. Personal beliefs and value systems are part of who we are but are not to be substituted for the value judgements of elected officials. And while elected officials should take our professional opinions into account when making decisions, they are not obligated to follow them. We may find that frustrating, but it is their right.

Of course, your ultimate choice is to “move on” if you find yourself working for a governing board who you feel doesn’t value your advice or whose decisions are inconsistent with your professional and/or personal values.

Even when we view some decisions by elected bodies as unwise, they have the right to make them, with the electorate being the final arbiter of the appropriateness of their decisions.

One of the most telling examples of a manager being able to accept with grace a decision he did not agree with was a manager I knew early in my career who was terminated by his city council. While he regretted that decision, his response to my question of what he thought about his termination was surprising and left a career-long impression on me. He said that while he wished it hadn’t happened, if a city council decides that they need someone else to be their city manager, then that is what needs to happen. He clearly understood that regardless of his skill, experience, and knowledge, if he no longer had the confidence of the council, that required a change. I found his ability to separate his personal feelings about the decision from the decision itself striking.

As much as we must defend the managerial prerogatives of the professional manager in the council-manager form of government, we must also defend the right of elected bodies to make their policy decisions as the elected representatives of the public. We owe that to democracy. And yes, we must understand and defend their “right to make the wrong decision.”

KEVIN DUGGAN, ICMA-CM, is a senior advisor for ICMA; former director, ICMA West Coast Region; and former manager of Mountain View, California (kcduggan@katesbridge.com).