County and City Government - Directly Elected Mayors

Introduction
This Chapter sets out a number of options which could be pursued to revise the arrangements for local authority mayors/cathaoirligh.

Background - Proposals under the Local Government Act 2001
The Local Government Act 2001 provided that the mayor of a city or county council would be directly elected by the city or county electorate. This was to replace the system of annual election of mayor/chair from among councillors. However, this provision was repealed, before it could take effect (in the Local Government Act 2003) at the same time that the dual mandate was abolished.

The intention behind the provisions in the 2001 Act was that a directly elected mayor, provided with a powerful democratic mandate, would become the public face of local government. The office would, over time, rebalance the relationship between the elected and executive components of local government by virtue of the democratic mandate and tenure of office rather than through the granting of additional executive powers. The first direct elections for mayor were due to be held in 2004 with subsequent elections every 5 years.

The provisions attracted criticism from two opposing view points: firstly, that they were minimalist in terms of powers, and secondly, concerns were expressed that single issue or celebrity candidates with no experience of local government could be elected to office to the detriment of local government.

On the other hand there was some positive reaction to the proposals on the basis that electing a non-executive mayor would be a first step which could ultimately pave the way for an executive mayor.

The reason given for the repeal of the provision was that the new local government regime introduced by the 2001 Act needed space to settle following the abolition of the dual mandate. There was, in addition, significant political opposition to the concept of directly elected mayors, including from many councillors who may have seen their own position diminished as against that of a high profile mayor. It was promised, however, to keep the issue under review.

Current Considerations on Mayors
The issues which arose in relation to the 2001 provisions still exist i.e. encouraging the election of single issue or celebrity candidates; the relationship between a directly elected mayor and council; and a fear that councillors, and indeed other public representatives, may see their status diminished against that of a high profile mayor.

A review of local government systems in other democracies shows that there is no one model which can be directly transplanted to an Irish situation. There are a myriad of forms of local government, varying in function, method of election, forms and powers of chairmanship, differentiation of function between council, chair and executive and so on. Each system is rooted in its own history, traditions and culture and is the product of different evolutionary influences. Changes to the Irish local government system must also take cognisance of those same factors, as well as of the possible contribution that changes can bring to enhance the role of local government in Ireland.

Any proposal to reintroduce the concept of a directly elected mayor, either generally or in particular circumstances, must be justified in terms of the benefits such an office could bring. In this regard, one of the primary considerations will be cost, not just in terms of payment to the office holder, but also in terms of any additional supports which the office would require. Cost, in turn, would be influenced by whether or not the position is to be full time. Again, it is possible that different approaches could be followed in different areas.

One of the arguments made during the Oireachtas debate in 2001 in support of directly elected mayors was that the reforms of Better Local Government had strengthened the management level of local authorities without any rebalancing of the democratic controls/oversight of council affairs. The view was put that this had further imbalanced the democratic accountability and control functions from an already weak base, at least in comparison with other democracies. The contrary view is that the Corporate Policy Group and Strategic Policy Committee system was put in place to enhance councillors’ policy formation role.

It has further been suggested that the ending of the dual mandate further impacted on the elected side by removing a cohort of full time, experienced politicians. However, in this regard it is fair to say that a period of re-adjustment, following the end of the dual mandate, was to be expected. This adjustment is still working through the system.

The issues around a directly elected mayor are also linked to the discussion about the correct balance in the relationship between the elected council and the manager.

Rationale for an Elected Mayor
One rationale for a directly elected mayor is that such an office would be able to use democratic legitimacy to “speak and negotiate on behalf of the whole community with influence well beyond any formal powers”,¹³ regardless of the powers given to the office of mayor.

A directly elected mayor would significantly enhance the visibility of the mayor’s office by (a) the enduring nature of the position – at least 5 years in place of the current annual change, (b) the greater capacity for continuity and delivery over a 5 year term, and (c) the attention that the local community and media would focus on one individual in that position.

These aspects might be seen in time as being beneficial to local government in raising its profile across its broad environmental, social and economic agenda. In addition, the associated higher profile and engagement of the public through a mayoral election might be seen as enhancing democratic participation and active citizenship.

The current method of electing council chairpersons in Ireland on an annual basis from among council members means that that the mayor or cathaoirleach does not build the sustained presence to be seen as the voice of the local government.

On the other hand, one of the criticisms in 2001 was the fear that mayors could be elected with public support but with no political support from within the council chamber. It was argued that this could prove very disruptive of council business where the personal relationships between chair, councillor and manager all contribute to ensuring the effective operation of local government.

International Experience
Experience abroad shows a variety of governance arrangements including strong executive mayors, executive councils, managerial systems similar to Ireland, and arrangements involving cabinet type systems where executive power is held by a subset of a greater council.

There is no universal model which applies, or indeed no model which can definitely be said to be superior. It would be wrong to think that the importation of any one particular system would be right for Irish local government. Each system has its own traditions and cultural roots which have affected the evolution of local government in each country much the same way that the dynamics of the early State have left a lasting impression on local government in Ireland.

That said, directly elected mayors have become much more common in European States over the past 20 years or so in countries such as Germany and Italy, as well as Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and Slovenia. English local government reform took some tentative (but not very successful) steps in that direction in 2000 and the UK Government is now bringing forward further reforms in that direction.¹⁴

Annex I to this paper gives a synopsis of international experience of various mayoral and managerial systems.

Submissions from the Public and Consideration by the Consultative Committee
The submissions arising from public consultation were generally favourable towards the provision of directly elected mayors. There was a wide range of views regarding the functions such mayors should have and as to whether directly elected mayors should be introduced for just the major cities or for all local authorities.

The views expressed at the Consultative Committee ranged from strongly supportive of the concept, to scepticism as to whether such a development in Irish local government would actually bring any tangible benefits.

There were suggestions that directly elected mayors should be extended to cities and counties, but only after a period of experience of a directly elected Mayor for Dublin (see previous Chapter). Other views considered that all local authorities, including towns, should have directly elected mayors, but only after sufficient powers had been devolved to all councils.

Other issues raised included the need to consider carefully the respective roles of mayor, councillor and manager in any new proposals. It was noted that there were a wide variety of models of mayor, and opinions varied as to whether mayors should be given explicit executive powers or not.

It was also suggested that the decision to adopt a directly elected mayor could be left up to individual local authorities, or that full term mayors could be selected from within the elected members of the council.

Previous arguments about celebrity candidates were raised. These were countered by the view that democracy should not place artificial barriers to participation.

While there was general consensus that a mayoral term should be longer than the current year term, views varied as to whether a term should be for 5 years or a lesser period e.g. 2.5 years.

Options in Relation to Local Authority Mayors
As set out in Chapter 2 it is suggested that directly elected mayors would be beneficial to Irish local government. Such an office has the potential to provide better leadership, legitimacy, accountability and civic engagement.

It may be that more than one option could be applied in different circumstances, or that certain options should be tested on a pilot basis. The various options which could be adopted in introducing a stronger mayoral system in Ireland are set out below.

Direct or Indirect Election of Mayors
While this Paper is tasked with considering the possibility of directly elected mayors it is legitimate to consider if an alternative approach of allowing a full 5 year term mayor to be elected from the body of the elected members of the council. This approach is used in a number of countries, for example in France, where the mayor of the commune is elected in this way.

The more common form of mayoral selection is for the mayor to be elected by popular vote of the electorate for the term of the council. This was the form legislated for in 2001.

An argument put forward against direct election in the Irish system is that mayors elected in this way, and without express executive power, would find it difficult to operate as chair of a council in the absence of wider support around the council chamber.

However, direct election brings added legitimacy and it would be expected that councillors, managers and mayors would develop operational modes to work together to progress local authority business. Experience in New Zealand, with directly elected non-executive mayors, suggests that such an approach can work.

The suggested option at this stage is for direct, rather than indirect, elections.

Selective or Universal Application of Directly Elected Mayors
The 2001 Act legislated for directly elected mayors in all counties and cities but not for town councils. This is still the most straightforward approach in terms of traditional local government policy, national administration and legislation. General application avoids making difficult distinctions between areas, and avoids trying to justify why one area should have a directly elected mayor and another not. However, this approach fails to recognise the scale of differences between local authorities in terms of size, function and capacity.

Suggestions for introducing a mayoral system include starting in Dublin and considering further application some time in the future, starting with the 5 cities, or having universal application to all local authority areas.

There are arguments for local discretion (i.e. with the agreement of the council itself or subject to local plebiscite). In the United States, State legislation often provides a menu of 5 or 6 models of local democratic government (ranging from a strong mayor to a powerful manager model) which local communities can choose to adopt.

Experience in Britain, following reforms in 2000, demonstrated that there is often resistance to change from within existing institutions. The October 2006 English Local Government White Paper – Strong and Prosperous Communities, stated that local authorities in England and Wales had adopted “a cautious approach to change”, and it went on to criticise the fact that most council leaders (i.e. chairs) face election every year: “This can make it hard to take and see through essential but difficult decisions that may in the short term be unpopular. It also brings uncertainty for senior management teams in pursuing and implementing longer term strategies.”

The UK Government has decided therefore, notwithstanding the local reluctance to change, to legislate for 3 models of executive arrangement:

The experience in England and Wales suggests that leaving absolute discretion for local authorities to adopt a full term or directly elected mayor is likely to meet resistance, and therefore delay the move towards stronger local democratic leadership.

Having regard to the above arguments, it is suggested that, in line with the principle of having directly elected mayors, the approach provided for in the 2001 Act should be the starting point i.e. mayors in all counties and cities. Consideration will need to be given to the potential costs of such a system before definitive conclusions are reached in the White Paper.

In this regard there is a case for making the position of mayor a full time salaried position, at least in larger authorities, if the Mayor is to fulfil the potential of the office in providing local democratic leadership, particularly in the expanded roles which council chairs now have.

Powers and Functions of a Mayor
Although the 2001 Act did not provide for executive powers to be given to mayors, it did give explicit recognition to a number of key roles which the mayor is asked to perform, for example, chairing the Corporate Policy Group and County/City Development Boards, a role in relation to ethics etc.

Internationally there are many models of mayor with varying degrees of power (Annex I provides more detail on a selection of these models):

The options for reform set out in this Paper propose to build on the existing system – not dispense with it. Therefore the major options in this regard are:

A Stronger Cabinet

Conclusion
The suggested option in relation to mayors is as follows:

---