14 p o p u l a r g o v e r n m e n t

What does it mean to say thatNorth Carolina city councilmembers and county com-

missioners “govern”? Local elected of-ficials and their public managers give alot of different answers to this question.A common one is “Local elected officialsare responsible for policy, and publicmanagers are responsible for adminis-tration.” Although this statement is true,it fails to capture the wide range of gov-erning responsibilities that local electedofficials carry out with the support oftheir top-level managers.

This article introduces the LocalGovernment Governing Model (LGGM),which addresses the essential responsi-bilities of local elected governing boards.The LGGM differs from other govern-ance models in focusing specifically onresponsibilities of public-sector govern-ing boards at the local level. It can beused to help board members understand,plan, organize, and review board work.

In their official capacity, members oflocal governing boards work with othersin local government and the communityto represent citizens’ views and needsand to solve public problems. A personserving as a member of a local govern-ing board shares responsibility andauthority for exercising a broad rangeof official activities. Acting as a govern-ing body, boards of county commis-sioners, city councils, and other localgovernment boards have the authorityto enact local ordinances, promulgaterules, and set policies.1 Governing boardsconsider and decide local issues, allocateresources for selected purposes, andoversee and evaluate how well the man-ager and the organization are address-ing local priorities. They exercise all

these responsibilities under constraintsthat often make governing difficult.

The work of local governing boardsoccurs under a set of conditions that areunique to government.2 Unlike membersof corporate and not-for-profit boards,local elected officials are required bystate law to operate in the public eye aslocal legislators, adjudicators, and policymakers. They act in a complex environ-ment, full of competing demands frommultiple groups and individuals. Noindividual board member may enactpolicy, and nobody is an expert in allthe matters that the board must decide.

Functioning in this environmentoften leads to distraction, disinterest, andgroup division, resulting in less efficient,less responsive local government andheightened mistrust by citizens. As morelocal governing boards broadcast theirmeetings on local television, citizens areincreasingly aware of how well or poorlyboard members interact with each other,with their employees, and with the pub-lic. Newly electedofficials with limitedexperience or skill inmanaging publicmeetings, handlingcomplicated commu-nity issues, or over-seeing complex organizations can be quickly over-whelmed when theytake office. It maytake more than one term in office for an elected official to understand whatthe board and the local government doand how they relate to local, state, andregional stakeholders.

One way to help local governingboards and their public administratorsbecome familiar with their responsibil-ities is to use a process model such asthe LGGM. Developed to describe es-sential responsibilities of public boards,the model suggests a sequence in which

North Carolina’s city councils, boardsof county commissioners, and otherlocal governing boards may best ac-complish their work. The essentialresponsibilities described in the LGGMwill be familiar to people who haveserved on or worked closely with gov-erning boards. What the LGGM doesdifferently is to illustrate how theseindividual local governing responsibil-ities link to, build on, and support oneanother.

How the LGGM is applied in anyparticular circumstance depends on theneeds of the governing board and themanager. Boards and managers can useit as an educational tool, to assist mem-bers in understanding the nature of andthe relationships among the many activ-ities involved in carrying out their re-sponsibilities. Boards and managers alsocan use the LGGM to plan and organizegoverning board work, mapping anissue through the sequence to determinean agenda and a time frame for activi-

ties to be accom-plished. For workalready underway, boards andmanagers can usethe LGGM as achecklist, to eval-uate issues on itsagenda and deter-mine whereadditional infor-mation or action

may be needed, to prompt questionsabout the strengths and the weaknessesof particular activities, to stay on trackwith planned work, and to evaluate pro-gress. For sample questions constitutinga checklist, see the sidebar on page 21.

As with any process model, theLGGM is most useful as a general guidefor action. Local circumstances andindividuals will influence to what degreethe five essential responsibilities arecarried out. In practice, the essential

Essential Responsibilities of Local Governing BoardsVaughn Upshaw

The author is a School of Governmentfaculty member specializing in governanceand leadership for public managers, localelected officials, and governing boards.Contact her at vupshaw@unc.edu.

Governing boards consider anddecide local issues, allocateresources for selected purposes,and oversee and evaluate how wellthe manager and the organizationare addressing local priorities.

P O P U L A R G O V E R N M E N T

w i n t e r 2 0 0 6 15

governing responsibilities must begrounded in a local context, in recogn-ition of the importance of each com-munity’s particular history, politics, andculture. How well work is performeddepends on the commitment of localgovernment leaders to carrying out theirgoverning responsibilities and on theability of local board members andpublic managers to work together andwith others successfully to solve publicproblems.

The Meaning of “Governing” at the Local Level

Drawing on the disciplines of politicalscience, public administration, andinternational relations, a definition of

“governing” at the local governmentlevel might simply read,

Exercising leadership and applyingdemocratic values within localgovernment and the community torepresent citizens’ interests, set thecourse for public issues, oversee howpublic issues are addressed, andmake sure that local government’sactions positively contribute to thecommunity’s current and futurequality of life.3

Such a definition may help a publicboard understand what governing at thelocal level means, but it does not guide a

public board in how to govern effec-tively. Governing occurs at many levels.The LGGM offers practical guidance on a board’s essential governing re-sponsibilities, acknowledging that these responsibilities take place within a political context. Local officials areelected to represent a particular geo-graphic area in their community or anetwork of community coalitions andgroups. As individuals, elected officialsgovern using leadership, values, ethics,and commitments. Across officials,these attributes will vary. A boardmember who is committed to reducingthe size of local government, forinstance, will vote differently from aboard member who believes thatgovernment has an obligation to serve

16 p o p u l a r g o v e r n m e n t

Dichotomy/ Distinguishes between Duality Model1 council’s and manager’s

responsibilities in four areas:

• Mission

• Policy

• Administration

• Management

Demonstrates that board is primarilyresponsible for mission and policydevelopment, while manager takes lead foradministration and management

Refers specifically to responsibilities of citycouncils, mayors, and their managers

Provides useful way for local elected offi-cials and managers to discuss and assesstheir respective roles and responsibilitiesfor policy making and administration

Does not attend to other public boardgoverning responsibilities, such asadjudication, community collaboration, andguaranteeing of accountability

Does not specify exclusive set of governingboard responsibilities

Policy Governance Defines nonprofit boards’ Model2 responsibilities in four areas:

• Determining ends

• Setting executive limitations

• Managing board-executive relationship

• Monitoring board processes

Helps nonprofit boards understand theirgoverning responsibilities

Describes governing board’s policy-makingrole in detail

Does not provide for legal authority thatestablishes, empowers, and constrains localgovernments

Does not directly address public board’sresponsibilities dealing directly with citizens,key stakeholders, and other officials

Does not give specific attention to publicboard’s role in resource allocation andoversight

Does not describe executive’s shared role in governance

Health System Describes board’s Governance Model3 responsibilities in five areas:

• Determining ends

• Overseeing executive performance

• Ensuring quality of care

• Overseeing financial performance

• Monitoring board performance

Incorporates financial oversight and quality assurance as distinct boardresponsibilities

Delineates board’s roles in policy develop-ment, decision making, and oversight

Does not acknowledge legal authority thatestablishes, empowers, and constrains localgovernments

Does not directly address public board’sresponsibilities dealing directly with citizens,key stakeholders, and other officials

Does not describe executive’s shared role ingovernance

Effective Board of Identifies six governance Trustees Model4 competencies:

• Understanding history and culture

• Nurturing board leadership

• Educating board members

• Managing complexity

• Working with multiple constituencies

• Thinking strategically

Augments and complements othergovernance models by defining coregoverning competencies

Provides research base for factors thatdistinguish more effective from lesseffective boards in higher education

Suggests practices that lead to moreeffective governing board performance

Does not recognize legal authority thatestablishes, empowers, and constrainslocal governments

Does not describe executive’s shared role ingovernance

Does not address locally elected publicboard’s role in accountability

Local Government Describes five essential Governing Model governance responsibilities

for local government boards:

• Understanding legal authority

• Working with others

• Setting policy

• Allocating resources

• Being accountable

Integrates responsibilities relevant to localgovernment boards into new governingmodel

Describes responsibilities of elected boards

Provides tool that can be used to educatenew members

Helps board members plan and manageboard work

Does not describe executive’s shared rolein governance

Governing Model What It Focuses On What It Does What It Does Not Do

Table 1. Distinguishing Features of Five Governing Models

1. James H. Svara, Council Roles, Performance, and Form of Government, in THE FUTURE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION (H. George Frederickson & JohnNalbandian eds., Washington, D.C.: Int’l City/County Mgmt. Ass’n, 2002).

2. JOHN CARVER, BOARDS THAT MAKE A DIFFERENCE (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990).

3. DENNIS D. POINTER & CHARLES M. EWELL, REALLY GOVERNING: HOW HEALTH SYSTEM AND HOSPITAL BOARDS CAN MAKE MORE OF A DIFFERENCE (Albany, N.Y.: Del MarPublishers, 1994).

4. RICHARD P. CHAIT ET AL., THE EFFECTIVE BOARD OF TRUSTEES (Phoenix: Oryx Press, 1993).

w i n t e r 2 0 0 6 17

all citizens, regardless of theirability to pay. The essentialgoverning responsibilities forall members of the board,however, remain the same.

Development of a LocalGovernment GoverningModel

Moving from definition topractice requires examiningessential governing respon-sibilities more closely, seeinghow they fit together, andlearning how to move from one respon-sibility to another. A model of govern-ing for local government should focuson what public governing boards doand what actions lead to improvedoutcomes for local government, relatedorganizations, communities, and regions.Few models focus on the responsibilitiesof elected governing boards at the locallevel. Attention to governing in the public sector has largely been focusedon federal and state legislatures andexecutive branch activities.4 Therefore Ifound it necessary to develop a modelexclusively for local governing boards.The LGGM is intended specifically toassist members of local governingboards such as city councils, boards ofcounty commissioners, and schoolboards, though bodies at other levels ofgovernment, such as state legislaturesand Congress, as well as other localboards, share many of these essentialgoverning responsibilities.

Governing boards in nonprofit,health care, and education organiza-tions share some responsibilities withlocal government boards, so governancemodels developed for such boards canbe useful in helping people understandwhat local government boards areresponsible for. For a brief descriptionof four governing board models used inthe local government, nonprofit, healthcare, and education sectors, see Table 1.Table 1 also includes an assessment ofeach model’s utility for helping locallyelected governing boards understandtheir essential governing responsibilities.

The first model, the Dichotomy/Duality Model, is the only one thatfocuses directly on the policy andadministrative responsibilities of local

elected officials and their managers.Based on Woodrow Wilson’s distinctionbetween policy and administration, thismodel is commonly used to distinguishbetween the local elected board’s andthe manager’s responsibilities.5 TheDichotomy/Duality Model focuses on apublic council’s and manager’s respon-sibilities in four areas: mission, policy,administration, and management.6 ThePolicy Governance Model describes anonprofit board’s responsibility in fourareas: determining ends, setting execu-tive limitations, managing the board-executive relationship, and monitoringboard processes.7 The Health SystemGovernance Model portrays a healthsystem board’s ultimate responsibilitiesas determining ends, overseeing execu-tive performance, ensuring quality ofcare, overseeing financial performance,and monitoring board performance.8

The Effective Board of Trustees Modelfocuses on six competencies that areassociated with more effective highereducation governing boards: under-standing history and culture; nurturingboard leadership; educating board mem-bers; managing complexity; working withmultiple constituencies; and thinkingmodels contribute useful perspectives,none of them fully capture the uniqueactivities and responsibilities of electedboards serving local government.

To describe the responsibilities oflocal government boards more com-pletely, a fifth model, the LGGM, adaptscomponents of other board governancemodels and applies them to the work oflocal government boards, adding ele-ments relevant to local governmentboards that are missing in other models.The LGGM depicts the governing

responsibilities of local gov-ernment boards, not theresponsibilities of the publicmanager. In the LGGM, pub-lic managers have a duty toassist their boards in perform-ing these essential governingresponsibilities, but boardscannot delegate these respon-sibilities in whole to the man-ager, nor can the board holdthe manager exclusively orultimately accountable formaking sure that the boardhas performed them.

A Local Government Governing Model

Five essential governance responsibil-ities of local governing boards emergedfrom my review of North Carolina’sstate statutes and the governanceliterature, and my own experienceserving on and working with boards:10

1. To understand the legal authoritygranted to the local elected board

2. To work with others in local gov-ernment and in the community

3. To develop policies and enact localordinances that set the direction forlocal government and the communityas a whole

4. To allocate resources for effective andefficient local government operation,programs, and services

5. To be accountable for and overseelocal government using board,administrative, and program reports

The process through which theseresponsibilities ideally occur is shown inFigure 1. In practice, a local governingboard may not follow the exact sequencepresented in Figure 1, instead movingforward and backward through the pro-cess on particular issues. Although theresponsibilities flow logically within themodel, how specific activities will occurin practice depends on a variety ofsituational factors.

The five essential governing respon-sibilities are both distinct from and re-lated to one another. For instance, a localgoverning board’s legal structure (respon-sibility 1) directs how its members can in-teract with the public (responsibility 2)

Figure 1. Local Government Governing Model: EssentialResponsibilities of Local Governing Boards

1. Understand Its Legal Authority

2.Work with Others 3. Set Policy

4. Provide Resources 5. Be Accountable

18 p o p u l a r g o v e r n m e n t

and what policies it can adopt (respon-sibility 3). A governing board’s ability towork with others (responsibility 2) affectsits ability to develop policy (responsibil-ity 3). Thinking of the model as a recircu-lating waterfall, where responsibilities flowinto, are captured by, and spill over intolower pools, better reflects the realities ofhow these essential governing responsibil-ities influence and depend on one another.

Understanding Its Legal AuthorityThe elected official’s first responsibilityis to know, understand, and adhere tolegal authority and procedures. Becauselocal government boards are establishedby state statute, elected officials mustunderstand their responsibilities andobligations as members of publicentities.11 “Legal responsibilities” refersto such authorities as the following:

• A governing board’s statutory man-dates, laws, and administrative rules

• A governing board’s proceduralrequirements

• A governing board’s law-makingauthority

• An elected official’s avoidance ofconflict of interest

Local governing boards are requiredby law to exercise some legal responsi-bilities directly. They have the legalauthority to delegate other responsibili-ties to professional managers, their staff,appointed boards, or nongovernmentalorganizations. To govern effectively atthe local level, elected officials need toknow what they are statutorily respon-sible for, what options are available tothem in fulfilling these responsibilities,and what laws, rules, and proceduresthey are required to follow.12 Local gov-ernments typically hire attorneys toadvise them on legal issues, but to fulfilltheir governance roles, elected boardmembers should have a general under-standing of their own and local govern-ment’s legal responsibilities.13

Working with OthersNo person or board governs alone. In the second part of the LGGM, localgoverning boards exercise their respon-sibility to work with others to under-stand issues that the board, the localgovernment, and the community want

to address. Once a candidate is elected,he or she becomes a member of a localgoverning board and must work withothers to identify issues and decide whatpriorities to address. At a minimum,mayors must work with city councils toenact local ordinances, and chairs ofboards of county commissioners canmove a policy forward only when it hasthe support of a majority of the group.

Typically, board members interactwith a variety of people inside and out-side government to understand issuesand determine how best to addressthem. The public manager and the staffbring policy proposals before the board.Citizens and coalition groups have spe-cific concerns that they want the boardand their local government to address.Collaboration can occur with other localboards and external organizations thathave their own governing authority.These multiple stakeholders raise im-portant and competing local issues;offer different perspectives about howissues should beframed; and ask forendorsements, part-nerships, and re-sources for their pre-ferred causes. Localboard members whoknow how to listento, interact with, andwork with others arebetter able to learnabout local values,interests, and pri-orities and expandtheir options for re-sponding to and solving public problems.

How effectively a local governingboard works with others influences howwell it carries out other essential respon-sibilities depicted in the LGGM. Forinstance, individual citizens expect to beengaged during policy making (respon-sibility 3), and governing boards need tobe knowledgeable about how to includethem in meaningful ways.14 Local gov-erning boards also are building relation-ships as they contract with externalindividuals and organizations to accom-plish public objectives (responsibility 4),or conduct the local manager’s perfor-mance evaluation (responsibility 5).15

Working effectively with others in thepublic arena requires that governing

board members understand politics,people, and turf issues and be able touse interpersonal communication andconflict resolution skills effectively acrossa broad network of individuals andorganizations.

Setting PolicyThe third essential governing responsi-bility is to set the government’s coursethrough decision making and policydevelopment. Policy development is thelocal governing board’s most importantjob. In carrying out its policy develop-ment responsibilities, a city council or aboard of county commissioners focuseson such tasks as defining the local gov-ernment’s mission, vision, and values;setting priorities; and deciding whatservices to offer to whom, and how topay for them. Effectively exercising itspolicy-making responsibilities requiresthat a governing board understand howto select the issues that it will address,and determine how it will address them.

To carry out itspolicy-makingresponsibility, agoverning boardneeds to knowhow to engageproductively indiscussions aboutmission andgoals. The gov-erning boardmust be able toanalyze short-and long-termissues strategically

and decide what the local government’sresponsibility for these issues is, if it hasany. Once the governing board agreesthat the local government has theresponsibility to respond to a particularissue, it must frame the policy that guideshow the local government will respond,deliberate on the policy, and decide howto move forward.

To carry out this policy-making roleeffectively, board members need accessto appropriate and necessary informa-tion. Public managers are the primarysource of information for the governingboard. The quality of the informationthat managers provide contributes tothe quality of the decisions that boardsmake. When managers and others pro-

To govern effectively at the locallevel, elected officials need to know what they are statutorilyresponsible for, what options areavailable to them in fulfilling theseresponsibilities, and what laws,rules, and procedures they arerequired to follow.

w i n t e r 2 0 0 6 19

vide material that is confusing andvoluminous, board members are unableto determine the relevant questions andmake critical decisions.

Allocating ResourcesOnce a board has adopted policies, itmust find resources to support policyimplementation. Allocating resources,the fourth component of the model,refers to the governing board’s respon-sibility to create the capacity for localgovernment to act. In carrying out thisresponsibility, the board decides whatresources (finances, personnel, in-kindcontributions, equipment, and capital) it needs, how it will generate them, andwithin what parameters it will use them.In this component of the model, thegoverning board is responsible fordetermining how use of resources willbe monitored, but the monitoring func-tion itself falls under the accountabilityrole (responsibility 5).

City councils and boards of countycommissioners in North Carolina havethe authority to generate revenuesthrough taxation and fees, and are responsible for budgeting and capital financing, oversight and control of ex-penditures, and contracting and pur-chasing.16 In the LGGM, responsibility for

allocating resources includes the govern-ing board’s decisions regarding resourceacquisition and distribution to achievelocal government policy objectives.

Allocating resources is distinct fromdeveloping policy in the LGGM becauseresource-related activities, such as advisingon, reviewing, and adopting the budget,are separate from decision making aboutwhat is to be done with those resources.Resource allocation is an important re-sponsibility of public governing boards,and it consumes a substantial part of aboard’s and a manager’s time. The gov-erning board’s policy-making and resource-allocating responsibilities (responsibilities3 and 4, respectively) are closely related,for governing boards routinely makepolicy decisions on the basis of how re-sources will be allocated, used, and ac-counted for. By separating the tworesponsibilities, the LGGM emphasizesthat governing boards have an essentialresponsibility for deciding how resourcesare generated, used, and monitored tosupport major policy initiatives andbenefit the community at large.

Being AccountableBeing accountable, the final componentof the governance model, refers to a widerange of issues, including the board’s

responsibility to document how effec-tively and efficiently it, the manager,and the local government’s administra-tors and programs have addressed needsand served the community’s interest. Aneffective governing board understandsand monitors its success at fulfilling itsown responsibilities, just as it clearlydelineates expectations for the managerand key local government programs.Ideally the governing board establishesannual goals and does an annual self-assessment to evaluate how well it usedits legal authority and how well itworked with others to establish policy,allocate resources, and provide thenecessary oversight and leadership toensure that local government accom-plished its goals.17 Too often, governingboards evaluate local government byreviewing the actions and the success ofthe manager. But, as Professors DelmerDunn and Jerome Legge point out,“Elected officials must, in a democracy,constitute a key component of theaccountability-responsibility relation-ship with public administrators.”18

“Accountability is the price citizensexact for conferring substantial admin-istrative discretion and policy respon-sibility on both elected and appointedgovernment personnel,” Dunn andLegge maintain.19 Citizens hold indi-vidual elected officials accountable bydeciding whether or not to vote forthem. If local elected officials want to bereelected, it serves their own and thecommunity’s interest if they can demon-strate how they worked with othermembers of the board, local govern-ment, and the community to achieveimportant objectives during their timein office. Often, the issue on which aperson campaigned ends up being diffi-cult, if not impossible, for that person toaddress in a single term. For citizens,elected officials, and staff members toknow what has been accomplished, amechanism must be in place that docu-ments what major initiatives were carriedout and whether specific objectives wererealized. Through a combination ofannual performance evaluations of themanager, financial audits, programreviews, and board self-assessments,local government boards establish atrack record of accomplishments andidentify areas for improvement.

Periodic elections are an integral part of a local

governing board’sbeing accountable.

20 p o p u l a r g o v e r n m e n t

Another reason to include account-ability in a governance model is that“what gets measured gets done.”20 Pub-lic boards are in a position to determinewhat will be given priority and whatwill be noticed. How a board deter-mines what will receive attention andhow it holds itself and its manageraccountable for organizational resultsare important parts of the board’s over-all responsibility. Professor Donald Kettlwrites, “Managers have little incentiveto pay careful attention to performancemeasures if elected officials do notsignal that they, too, are paying atten-tion.”21 In sum, boards will be moreeffective in achieving specific local gov-ernment goals if they have an explicitplan and evaluation system in place.

Use of the LGGM: Three Examples

The following realistic examples offer abetter understanding of how the LGGMmight work in practice. They illustratethe model’s value at different levels ofcomplexity: planning for internal issues,addressing community-based issues, andhandling interjurisdictional issues. Usingthe model can assist board members inunderstanding and determining theboard’s options for approaching gov-ernance matters. When a governingboard follows this comprehensive ap-proach to addressing its responsibilities,it can minimize common governanceproblems, such as failing to consult keystakeholders, cutting resources whileexpanding policy objectives, and failingto have a way to determine whethergoals were achieved.

Example 1: Evaluation of theManager’s PerformanceIt was time for Newburg’s city councilto conduct the manager’s annualperformance review. At a work sessionin which the seven council members andthe manager began to plan the review,council member Adams asked whetherthe board was required to use the sameprocess that was previously used. Im-mediately, council member Jacksonsuggested that the appraisal tool bechanged because the current one wasnot focused on Newburg’s priorities.Council member Martin expressed con-

cern that the current process was handledexclusively by a subcommittee of theboard. Council member Peterson sug-gested getting rid of the manager’s annualreview altogether, noting that the cur-rent manager had been with the city formore than five years without incident.

The mayor asked the manager whathe thought of the process. The manageracknowledged that the instrument waslargely unrelated to his primary dutiesand that the review process had not pro-vided him with feedback from the fullboard. But he said that having an opportu-nity to hear how he was doing from mem-bers of the council had been beneficial.

A motion was made and carried thatan ad hoc committee of three councilmembers be established to design a newprocess and tool for the manager’s annualreview. Using the LGGM, the committeeproceeded in the following manner.

Understanding its legal authority.The ad hoc committee first sought tounderstand the council’s legal responsi-bility for performance appraisal. The

city attorney told committee membersthat Section 160A-147 of the NorthCarolina General Statutes (hereinafterG.S.) gives cities the authority to appointa manager and adopt rules, regulations,ordinances, and policies as needed toauthorize management’s duties and ac-tivities.22 He noted that the council’sprocess, involving a majority of the board,must comply with the state’s openmeetings laws and that personnel issuesinvolving compensation fall under pro-visions governing closed sessions. There-fore the council’s discussion to developan evaluation process would occur dur-ing an open meeting, but the evaluationitself would take place under the provi-sion for closed sessions. The attorneyadded that, though the statutes did notrequire the council to conduct an annualperformance review, doing so wasconsidered good management practice.

Working with others. The questionthen became how to design a new per-formance review process and tool. Look-ing at the LGGM, the ad hoc committee

Excerpt from Old Evaluation Tool

Competencies:

Reliability

Responds to requests for service andassistance

Follows instructions, responds todirection

Takes responsibility for own actions

Initiative

Volunteers readily

Undertakes self-development activities

Seeks increased responsibiities

Judgment

Makes decisions and acceptsaccountability

Exhibits sound and accurate judgment

Supports and explains reasoning fordecisions

Problem Solving

Identifies problems in a timely manner

Gathers and analyzes informationskillfully

Develops alternative solutions

Excerpt from New Evaluation Tool

Goal #2: Minimize cost and increaseefficiency of city government.

Performance Objectives and Measures

Maintain high level of service

Customer complaints

Customer satisfaction survey

Determine and maintain appropriate staffing levels

Employee turnover rate

Employee satisfaction survey

Expand electronic functions

Update website

Upgrade hardware/software

Prioritize capital projects

Establish management system

Promote economic development and redevelopment

Create business and government forum

Uphold fiscal integrity

Contract for annual audit

Table 2. Sample Questions for the Manager’s Performance Review

Sources: Old tool adapted from an actual North Carolina performance appraisal instrument.New tool adapted from the process described in a case study by John Szerlag (city manager ofTroy, Michigan) and Jan Perkins, published in 87 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 11 (2005).

w i n t e r 2 0 0 6 21

Using the Local Government Governing Model:A Checklist for Local Governing Boards

1. Understand Its Legal Authority

___ Do we know what we are legally required to do or restricted from doing on this issue?

___ Are there constitutional issues?

___ Statutory issues?

___ Local policies that we must follow?

___ Do we know what we are obligated to do by state or federal law?

___ Do we know what we are prevented from doing by state or federal law?

___ Do we know what we are given the option to do by state or federal law?

___ Do we know if there are other laws or standards that need to be considered?

2. Work with Others

___ Have we identified individuals and groups that need to be consulted or buy in before we can act?

___ Are all members of the board informed and prepared to act on this issue?

___ Have we engaged the manager and the organization on this issue?

___ Have we consulted relevant external individuals and groups?

___ Have we identified who will be helped and who will be harmed if we pursue this issue?

___ Are the media informed on the issue and the board’s proposed action?

___ Are there other units of government that need to be involved (e.g., the state, municipalities, neighboring counties)?

___ What agreements need to be negotiated internally or externally with key stakeholders to move the issue forward?

3. Set Policy

___ What result do we hope to achieve?

___ What policy do we want to enact?

___ How is this issue tied to our strategic plan?

___ Can we address this matter in our regular meetings, or do we need to hold a special meeting?

___ What information do we need to make a good decision?

___ What information will we need to monitor this issue over time?

___ Do we need to hold a public hearing?

___ Does the issue require a public referendum?

4. Allocate Resources

___ What resources will be required, and how will we know how well they were used?

___ Do we have the resources to pursue action on our own?

___ What other groups are contributing or might contribute resources to this issue?

___ Have we allocated resources to support our priorities?

___ Do we have a process for monitoring resource use?

5. Be Accountable

___ What will success look like, and how will we know if we achieve it?

___ What will we hold ourselves (as a board), our manager, and our organization accountable for?

___ How will we assess our own (board) work?

___ How will we assess the manager’s and the organization’s performance?

___ How will we address performance problems for the board, the manager, and the organization?

___ How will we recognize performance achievements by the board, the manager, and the organization?

22 p o p u l a r g o v e r n m e n t

saw that collaboration was the secondstep. Council member Adams asked,“Can the three of us alone design a newtool and process, or should we collabo-rate with others?” After discussion aboutwhom to involve, the committee de-cided to ask the manager to participate,along with an external consultant. Thedecision to use an external consultant wasinfluenced by the manager’s previous ex-perience with performance reviews. Hestated that the ad hoc committee’s planto change the previous tool and processcould be facilitated by an experiencedconsultant who would have sampletools and experience with alternativeapproaches to per-formance reviews ofmanagers. With thefull council’s supportto fund a consultant,the process movedforward.

Setting policy.With the consultant’shelp, the ad hoccommittee and themanager decided topropose that theannual review becarried out by thefull board and include input from seniormanagers. They recommended that thetool have a mix of standard items takenfrom the previous tool plus a series ofquestions related to the council’s currentpriorities (see Table 2, page 20).

The ad hoc committee also decided toask the council to do a self-assessment.The committee members realized duringtheir discussions that they believed thecity’s success to depend on both themanager’s and the council’s performance.During this discussion, council memberMartin raised the question of linkingpay to performance. This prompted thecommittee to turn its attention to thequestion of resources related to themanager’s performance evaluation.

Allocating resources. After selectinga tool and a process for the manager’sand the council’s annual performancereview, the ad hoc committee consideredwhat resources would be required.Financial resources included personneland supply costs associated with revisingand producing the appraisal tool, dis-tributing it, and collecting and summari-

zing the results. The ad hoc committeealso wanted resources to extend theconsultant’s contract to guide the per-formance review for the manager andthe council. Nonfinancial resources included the manager’s, the councilmembers’, and senior managers’ timeand energy to prepare, implement, andevaluate the review process. As the adhoc committee began to finalize its pro-posal to the full council, it decided torecommend that the council’s budgetinclude a bonus for the manager in theevent that he received a positive perfor-mance review.

Being accountable. In conducting the manager’sperformanceevaluation, thecouncil recognizedthat it was, in part,performing itsaccountabilityfunction. The adhoc committeemembers steppedback, looked at all they had done,and asked them-selves some addi-tional questions.

For example:

• How will we know what consti-tutes effective performance by themanager?

• How will we reward the manager foreffective performance?

• What will we do in the event that we find the manager to have beenineffective?

• How will the council provide on-going oversight of the manager’sperformance?

• How will we assess performance forthe council?

• How will we address ineffectivecouncil performance?

As they put the finishing touches onthe manager’s and the council’s perfor-mance appraisal process and tool, themembers of the ad hoc committee feltprepared to recommend to the fullcouncil that it initiate a performancereview for the manager and conduct aself-assessment.

Example 2: A Curfew for TeenagersThe small, historic town of Oldhambecame a favored spot for teenagerslooking for something to do in theevenings. Residents and businessowners living in the downtown areacomplained to the town council aboutthe teenagers’ rowdy behavior. Inresponse, members of the town councilproposed to enact an ordinance settinga 9:00 P.M. curfew for teenagers underthe age of eighteen. Angry parents andteenagers challenged the proposed cur-few, saying that it violated individualrights. The mayor suggested that thecouncil take another look at the issue be-fore adopting an ordinance. The LGGMguided the council’s work.

Understanding its legal authority. First,the council sought to understand andact within its legal authority to establishcurfews. The Oldham city attorney told thecouncil that G.S. 160A-174 gives citiesthe authority to prohibit and regulate“acts, omissions, or conditions detri-mental to the . . . safety, or welfare of its citizens and the peace and dignity of the city.”23 The attorney advised thecouncil that an ordinance establishing

a curfew just for minors might raiseconstitutional issues by restricting minors’rights more than adults’ rights. The attorney recommended that specificprovisions be included in the proposedordinance to address constitutionalconcerns and reduce the burden of the curfew on minors engaged in legiti-mate activities.

Working with others. Once thecouncil was aware of its legal authority,it needed to work with others to under-stand different perspectives on curfewsfor minors. Council member Jones wasready for the attorney to draft an ordi-nance establishing a 9:00 P.M. curfew forminors. Council member Anderson hadheard teenagers, parents, and religiousand business leaders expressing con-cerns about a curfew. Council memberMorris had concerns about how to enforce the curfew and wanted moredata from law enforcement about actual complaints and arrests before thecouncil voted on an ordinance. Thesedifferent objectives prompted the mayorto recommend that the council gathermore information and schedule a publichearing on the matter. The mayor

Through a combination of annualperformance evaluations of the manager, financial audits,program reviews, and board self-assessments, local governmentboards establish a track record of accomplishments and identifyareas for improvement.

w i n t e r 2 0 0 6 23

volunteered to work with the managerin collecting the additional documen-tation and making arrangements for thepublic hearing.

At the public hearing, the councilheard complaints from downtownresidents that teenagers were making alot of noise, hanging around the busi-ness district, leaving trash in people’syards, destroying property, drag racingthrough neighborhoods late into theevening, and making residents feelunsafe walking downtown after dark.The police chief reported that residentsand businesses routinely complainedabout these problems. Two downtownbusinessmen, owners of a game roomand an ice cream parlor, claimed thatthey benefited from the evening patrons.A petition signed by owners of six otherdowntown businesses detailed havingroutinely to clean up trash and repairoutside fixtures and furniture broken byrowdy teenagers. Teenagers expressedtheir need for places to gather and saida curfew would violate their constitu-tional rights. Parents raised concernsthat a 9:00 P.M. curfew would restrictteenagers from working evening shiftsor participating in church, sports, andclub activities. In sum, the councillearned that, although a curfew forminors might provide some relief fordowntown residents and businesses, it

would create difficulties for other com-munity members and might not solvethe downtown residents’ problems.

Setting policy. Now the council hadto decide what to do: take no action,adopt a curfew for minors, or addressteenagers’ need for a safe place to meet.The council proposed that the cityattorney draft an ordinance that wouldestablish a 10:00 P.M. curfew for minorsfor six months, noting that the curfewwould not apply to minors participatingin work-, church-, and school-relatedactivities. Further, the council agreedthat it would monitor the effects of theordinance, then revisit the issue at theend of the six months to determinewhether the curfew was working, be-fore making it permanent. The councilasked the manager and the police chiefto propose a budget at its next meetingfor enforcing the new ordinance.

Before moving on to other business,the mayor asked the council memberswhat outcomes they would like to seefrom the new curfew ordinance. Thecouncil members agreed that in sixmonths they should review whether ornot the curfew for minors had accom-plished the following:

1. Reduced the number of noise com-plaints in the downtown area by 50 percent

2. Reduced vandalism, loitering, andlitter violations in the downtown areaby 75 percent

Allocating resources. The manager,the police chief, and the mayor met todetermine what resources would beneeded to enforce the curfew. Theydecided that the best way to address thenoise, loitering, and vandalism wouldbe to have officers patrol the downtownarea on foot or bicycle rather than incars during the most active evening hours.In addition, the police chief recommendedputting a patrol car in the vicinity toprovide additional surveillance andbackup for the officers on foot. Thepolice chief estimated that his depart-ment would need an extra $52,000 toincrease the number of officers on patroldowntown from 9:00 P.M. until 1:00 A.M.for the six-month pilot program.

At the council’s next meeting, the man-ager proposed that it support a pilot 10P.M. curfew for minors, running fromMay 1 through October 31. Duringthese six months, the city would in-crease its police surveillance downtownduring the evening. The total cost forthe pilot curfew program was estimatedto be $52,000, and the funds for theprogram would come from postponingtwo new hires in the city’s finance andadministrative offices for six months.

A governing board mightuse the LGGM in decidingwhether or not to impose a

curfew on teenagers.

24 p o p u l a r g o v e r n m e n t

Being accountable. Once the pilotcurfew ordinance was adopted, the mayorand the manager scheduled a report onthe curfew following its six-month trialperiod. They agreed that the report shouldaddress the extent to which the curfewordinance reduced the number of noisecomplaints, the vandalism, and the loi-tering and litter violations in the down-town area. The mayor asked the managerto keep the council informed of anyproblems arising during the six-monthpilot period and also recommended thatthe manager think about how to continuethe program at the end of the six-monthtrial, should it be deemed a success.

Example 3: Impacts of Growth Thomas County and its neighbor,Harold County, grew rapidly in the lastdecade, resulting in sprawling housingdevelopments, strip malls, overcrowdedroads, and long traffic delays duringpeak driving hours. Harold County wasconsidering the development of a largeshopping complex on its northern bor-der, not far from two towns located insouthern Thomas County. Council mem-bers from these towns publicly denouncedHarold County’s plan, saying that alarge shopping center would furthercongest traffic along their southern bor-der and undermine their local busi-nesses. They were angry that they hadnot been consulted by Harold County inadvance. Both town councils asked tomeet with the Harold County commis-sioners to discuss the planned shoppingcenter. The LGGM guided HaroldCounty’s process.

Understanding its legal authority.The attorney for Harold County ad-vised the commissioners that they hadthe authority to decide what areas with-in their jurisdiction would be zoned forcommercial development. A portion ofthe property being proposed for theshopping center had previously beenzoned for commercial development andsat adjacent to other commercial prop-erties. However, a larger tract of landalso being considered for the shoppingcenter was currently zoned for agricul-tural use. To rezone the land for com-mercial purposes before approving newconstruction, Harold County was re-quired to provide public notices, holdpublic hearings, and publish plans.

Working with others. The HaroldCounty commissioners worked withinternal stakeholders (Harold County’smanager, planning director, economicdevelopment director, and planningboard) to attract and secure an appro-priate site for the shopping center. Al-though the county was not legallyrequired to seek input from neighboringjurisdictions, the commissioners recog-nized that there might be problemsresulting from higher traffic volume inand out of the shopping center, impacton businesses outside the county, andlack of coordination of commercialareas with neighboring jurisdictions.The commissioners also recognized thatthey might want tocontract withneighboringjurisdictions forwater and sewer ser-vices. Using theLGGM promptedthe Harold Countycommissioners totake a comprehensivelook at stakeholdersaffected by the shopping center and toconsult with external groups, such asother local government leaders, neigh-borhood associations, and area businessowners as a part of their overall process.Because traffic congestion was a majorconcern, Harold County also workedwith the State Department of Trans-portation.

Setting policy. The Harold Countycommissioners might support a shoppingcenter for several policy reasons. Forinstance, they might be committed toexpanding the nonresidential tax baseof the county, providing more convenientshopping options for county residents,or increasing job opportunities in theirjurisdiction. They recognized that theycould achieve these policy objectivesindependently of one another or in acoordinated fashion.

Other policy issues also might be atplay in Harold County. For instance,Harold County might be interested inbuilding the shopping center near neigh-boring towns to assert itself as a player inthe region’s economic system. Further,the commissioners might be concernedabout the character of the county andinterested in clustering commercial

development in areas that already werecommercial. From a strategic perspective,Harold County needed to identify whichpolicy objectives it wanted to address andconsider the possible long-term conse-quences of its actions on achieving theseobjectives. Depending on the extent towhich Harold County commissionerswanted to extend the county’s regionalinfluence, they might want to developpolicies in a coordinated fashion withother jurisdictions in their region.

Allocating resources. Once the boardarticulated a clear policy objective, theHarold County commissioners had to decide what resources they required to achieve their goal. Added traffic

and commercial de-velopment wouldrequire extra lawenforcement and fireprotection capacity. If the county decidedto provide water and sewer services,either on its own orthrough an arrange-ment with neighboring

jurisdictions, there would be expensesrelated to extending lines to serve thenew site.

Being accountable. Once the HaroldCounty commissioners determined thepolicy objectives they wanted to achieve,they needed to identify the results thatthey expected to see if these objectiveswere met. For instance, if they decidedthat a policy objective for the shoppingcomplex was to help diversify thecounty’s tax base, they might adopt thefollowing measures of accountability:

1. By 2010, Harold County will have atleast 30 percent of its taxes comingfrom commercial and industrialbusinesses.

2. By 2010, at least 60 percent ofHarold County residents will reportthat they shop in the county.

Depending on the other objectivesthe county commissioners agreed on,they might adopt other measures ofaccountability as well. For instance, ifthe board was interested in the regionalimpact of its new commercial develop-ment, it also might want to measure theproportion of noncounty residents whoshopped in Harold County.

How a governing board carries out its governanceresponsibilities also depends on individual ethics, values,leadership, and stewardship.

w i n t e r 2 0 0 6 25

Conclusion

These three hypothetical examples showhow a city council or a board of countycommissioners might use the LGGM toanticipate and plan for its responsibil-ities. They also illustrate that each issuehas its own complexity and that manyequally acceptable options might bepursued by a governing board. Al-though the LGGM prompts a governingboard to focus on and plan for its re-sponsibilities, the model does not pre-scribe a particular way in which theboard must act. Ultimately a city coun-cil or a board of county commissionersmust determine what it wants to achieve.

The five responsibilities in the LGGMparallel the fundamental work thatelected boards are charged to do by law,recommended to do in theory, and re-quired to do in practice. The model em-phasizes what a local governing board,such as a city council or a board of countycommissioners, is ultimately responsiblefor, and suggests how a board shouldcarry out its responsibilities. The LGGMdoes not explain everything about howa governing board’s work should occur.How a governing board carries out itsgovernance responsibilities also dependson individual ethics, values, leadership,and stewardship. Using this model as ageneral guide for practice, while takinginto account local needs, constraints,history, and commitment, can help localgoverning boards and their managerscarry out all their essential governingresponsibilities.

Notes

1. A number of local government govern-ing boards established and authorized by statestatute also could use this model as a frame-work for understanding and planning theirwork. Boards of education, social services,and health, for example, all have responsibil-ities similar to those described by the model.

2. John Nalbandian, The Council-StaffPartnership: A Team in Service to the Community, WESTERN CITY MAGAZINE, Sept.1999, at 5.

3. For definitions of governance inpolitical science, see JAMES G. MARCH &JOHAN P. OLSEN, DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE

28 (New York: Free Press, 1995). Fordefinitions in public administration, seeCarolyn J. Hill & Lawrence E. Lynn Jr.,Governance and Public Management: An

Introduction, 23 JOURNAL OF POLICY ANALYSIS

AND MANAGEMENT 3, 4 (2004); WILLIAM R.DODGE, REGIONAL EXCELLENCE: GOVERNING

TOGETHER TO COMPETE GLOBALLY AND

FLOURISH LOCALLY 38 (Washington, D.C.:Nat’l League of Cities, 1996); Lawrence E.Lynn Jr. et al., Studying Governance and Pub-lic Management: Challenges and Prospects,10 JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

RESEARCH AND THEORY 233, 236 (2000);LAWRENCE E. LYNN JR. ET AL., IMPROVING

GOVERNANCE: A NEW LOGIC FOR EMPIRICAL

RESEARCH 7 (Washington, D.C.: GeorgetownUniv. Press, 2001). For definitions ininternational relations, see ANNE METTE

KJAER, GOVERNANCE 4 (Malden, Mass.: PolityPress, 2004); ORGANIZATION FOR ECON.COOPERATION AND DEV., DEVELOPING PUBLIC

SECTOR LEADERSHIP FOR THE 21ST CENTURY:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 (Paris: OECD, 2001),available at www.oecd.org (last visited Sept.27, 2004); Wolfgang Michalski et al.,Governance in the 21st Century: Power in theGlobal Knowledge Economy and Society, inGOVERNANCE IN THE 21ST CENTURY 7, 9(Paris: Organization for Econ. Cooperationand Dev., 2001); Gerry Stoker, Governance asTheory: Five Propositions, 50 INTERNATIONAL

SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL 17, 17 (1998). 4. James H. Svara, Council Roles, Perfor-

mance, and Form of Government, in THE

FUTURE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRA-TION 213 (H. George Frederickson & JohnNalbandian eds., Washington, D.C.: Int’lCity/County Mgmt. Ass’n, 2002).

5. DONALD F. KETTL,THE TRANSFORMATION

OF GOVERNANCE: PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION FOR

TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY AMERICA (Baltimore:Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 2002); JohnNalbandian, Politics and Administration inCouncil-Manager Government: Differencesbetween Newly Elected and Senior CouncilMembers, 64 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW

200 (2004), available at www.goodlocalgovernment.org (last visited Aug. 29, 2004).

6. Svara, Council Roles.7. JOHN CARVER, BOARDS THAT MAKE A

DIFFERENCE (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990).8. DENNIS D. POINTER & CHARLES M.

EWELL, REALLY GOVERNING: HOW HEALTH

SYSTEM AND HOSPITAL BOARDS CAN MAKE

MORE OF A DIFFERENCE (Albany, N.Y.: DelMar Publishers, 1994).

9. RICHARD P. CHAIT ET AL., THE EFFECTIVE

BOARD OF TRUSTEES (Phoenix: Oryx Press, 1993).10. Continuously since 1986, I have served

local, state, and national public and nonprofitorganizations either as their executive directoror as a member of their governing board. Ialso have chaired local and national boardsand numerous board committees.

11. In North Carolina, cities and countiesare given authority to act by the GeneralAssembly. See MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT IN

NORTH CAROLINA 33 (David M. Lawrence &

Warren J. Wicker eds., 2d ed., Chapel Hill:Inst. of Gov’t, Univ. of N.C. at Chapel Hill,1995); COUNTY GOVERNMENT IN NORTH

CAROLINA 8 (A. Fleming Bell, II, & Warren J.Wicker eds., 4th ed., Chapel Hill: Inst. ofGov’t, Univ. of N.C. at Chapel Hill, 1998).

12. A. FLEMING BELL, II, SUGGESTED RULES

OF PROCEDURE FOR SMALL LOCAL GOVERN-MENT BOARDS (2d ed., Chapel Hill: Inst. ofGov’t, Univ. of N.C. at Chapel Hill, 1998);JOSEPH S. FERRELL, SUGGESTED RULES OF

PROCEDURE FOR THE BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS (3d ed., Chapel Hill: Inst. ofGov’t, Univ. of N.C. at Chapel Hill, 2002);JOSEPH S. FERRELL, HANDBOOK FOR NORTH

CAROLINA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (2d ed.,Chapel Hill: Inst. of Gov’t, Univ. of N.C. atChapel Hill, 1998); DAVID M. LAWRENCE,OPEN MEETINGS AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN

NORTH CAROLINA: SOME QUESTIONS AND

ANSWERS (6th ed., Chapel Hill: Inst. of Gov’t,Univ. of N.C. at Chapel Hill, 2002).

13. COUNTY GOVERNMENT IN NORTH

CAROLINA (Bell & Wicker eds.); Kurt Jenne,Governance in Council-Manager Cities, inMUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT IN NORTH CAROLINA

59 (Lawrence & Wicker eds.).14. Carolyn Lukensmeyer & Ashley Boyd,

Putting the “Public” Back in Management:Seven Principles for Planning MeaningfulCitizen Engagement, 86 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT

10 (2004).15. STEPHEN GOLDSMITH & WILLIAM D.

EGGERS, GOVERNING BY NETWORK: THE NEW

SHAPE OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR (Washington, D.C.:Brookings Inst., 2004).

16. COUNTY GOVERNMENT IN NORTH

CAROLINA (Bell & Wicker eds.); MUNICIPAL

GOVERNMENT IN NORTH CAROLINA (Lawrence& Wicker eds.).

17. For a discussion of establishing goals and conducting self-assessments, seeEnhancing the Governing Body’s Effective-ness, in THE EFFECTIVE LOCAL GOVERNMENT

MANAGER 57 (Charldean Newel ed., Wash-ington, D.C.: Int’l City/County Mgmt. Ass’n, 2004).

18. Delmer D. Dunn & Jerome S. Legge Jr.,Accountability and Responsibility of LocalGovernment Administrators, in THE FUTURE

OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION 131,137 (Frederickson & Nalbandian eds.).

19. Id. at 131.20. DAVID OSBORNE & TED GAEBLER,

REINVENTING GOVERNMENT 146 (Reading,Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1990).

21. DONALD F. KETTL, THE GLOBAL PUBLIC

MANAGEMENT REVOLUTION: A REPORT ON THE

TRANSFORMATION OF GOVERNANCE 67 (Wash-ington, D.C.: Brookings Inst. Press, 2000).

22. Jenne, Governance in Council-ManagerCities.

23. Thomas H. Thornburg, Curfews forMinors and Other Special Responses to Crime,POPULAR GOVERNMENT, Fall 1995, at 2, 2.