Fort Dodge, Iowa

City Government in Fort Dodge

From its beginnings in the 1850’s, Fort Dodge was led by mayors who led the growth and development of the fledging city. Fort Dodge’s first mayor was William Williams, who is recognized as the founder of Fort Dodge. Williams platted the early layout of the city and was Fort Dodge’s first postmaster. He was elected mayor in 1869.

Major Williams Williams

In the early beginning, Fort Dodge used a “strong mayor” form of government. With this form of government, the mayor served as the chief executive with significant administrative authority over city government. In the early 1900’s, Fort Dodge changed to the Des Moines Plan form of government. This plan, initially implemented in Des Moines, Iowa, was based on municipal government that had commissioners.

In order to address issues such as corruption, cronyism and unfair practices within city governments, Des Moines created a new form of government that was approved by the Iowa State Legislature. Initially, only cities with populations larger than 25,000 could implement the Des Moines Plan, but, after seeing its success, the Legislature approved this plan for cities of populations of 7,000 or larger. Fort Dodge voted to implement the Des Moines Plan form of government on August 15, 1910.

The philosophy behind the Des Moines Plan was to fairly represent the local constituents and their needs, values, and ideas. It was comprised primarily of a democratically elected council (not based on party affiliation or geographical area) and a mayor. The mayor and council/commissioners are the only elected municipal government officials under this plan. The council members/commissioners are all “At Large” representatives – they didn’t represent specific areas of the city (as does Fort Dodge’s current form of government). The council/commissioners were responsible for either hiring or appointing the department heads of city government.

The five departments named under The Des Moines Plan were Department of Public Affairs, Department of Accounts and Finances, Department of Public Safety, Department of Streets and Public Improvements and Department of Parks and Public Property. The mayor was the “Superintendent” of the Department of Government Affairs, and each council member/commissioner was the “Superintendent” one of the four remaining departments. The mayor also served as “overseer” of the other four departments.

Under the Des Moines Plan, two elections were held to fill the positions of Mayor and Council / Commissioners, The Primary election listed all mayoral candidates (the voters could vote for two mayoral candidates).and the list of council/commissioner candidates (listed in alphabetical order) followed. Voters could vote for up to four council/commissioner candidates. The top 2 vote winners in the mayoral race and the top eight winners then appeared on the official ballot for general election. The person who received the highest number of votes in the mayoral race became the mayor, and the four who received the highest number of votes in the council/commissioner races assumed those positions. It was believed that this system of governing was a very democratic way to represent members of the community and the best way to get rid of “corrupt, machine politics”.

The mayor and council members/commissioners were not allowed to own any electrical, telephone, heating, utility, etc. businesses and were prohibited from accepting “favors” from any businesses. This was a direct way to address corruption and favoritism.

As further proof of this, members of both the police and fire departments were prohibited from donating any funds to council members’ campaigns. There were also ample provisions in the Des Moines Plan, “The Recall”, that allowed commissioners to be removed, should they do something illegal or considered “intolerable conduct.”

The Des Moines Plan also allowed the public to have referendum for any laws that were being enacted. If there was disagreement about the new laws, the public could garner a specific number of signatures and ask the council to reconsider the new laws. It was believed that the “wishes of the people” were much more fairly represented under The Des Moines Plan, and that the people had avenues through which to directly affect local government.

Fort Dodge used this type of government for many decades. However, in 1953, a committee of citizens, chaired by Claude Van Gundy, wanted to change the form of government to a Council-Manager system. This proposed form of city government was likened to a corporate structure, with the citizens as the stockholders, the city council as the board of directors and a city manager as management/CEO hired by the council. Proponents of this type of government believed there would be more efficiencies because city government would be run like a business.

A city referendum was held on June 9, 1953, and the referendum was defeated by a vote of 2,723 to 2,361. Van Gundy and his committee accepted the defeat graciously, but noted that there was a high voter turnout, indicating strong interest in the plan. The group opposing the city manager plan accepted their victory and encouraged all involved to continue to work together harmoniously for the betterment of the Fort Dodge community.

Fort Dodge continued to use the Des Moines Plan type of government until 1981, when it changed to a strong mayor form of local government with a mayor and a city council elected by the voters. A strong mayor form of government is a system where the mayor serves as the city's chief executive, with significant power over day-to-day operations. The mayor typically has the authority to appoint and remove department heads, prepare and propose the budget, veto council actions, and manage city administration, while the city council has legislative authority. The city council serves as the governing body with council members elected to represent the citizens. The city council structure provides for a seven-member council with one council member elected for each of the city’s four wards and three council members elected at large.

Because the mayor in a strong mayor system is up for reelection every four years, the management of city government often lacks strong continuity when new mayors are elected. This usually leads to turnover with department heads and other appointed positions.

In 2005, Fort Dodge voters changed the city's form of government by a referendum vote, transitioning from a strong-mayor system to a council-manager system. The referendum passed with 61% of voters voting in favor of amending the City Charter and changing the form of government.

Before the vote, a Government Study Commission was appointed by the Fort Dodge city council. The Committee was chaired by Randy Kuhlman. Other committee members included Matt Bemrich, Mel Schroeder, Dale Struecker, Doug Sanders, Jennifer Leiting, John Nelson, Hans Nielsen, and Dennis O'Farrell. The Government Study Commission spent five months reviewing and investigating various forms of local government including interviewing government leaders from other cities. The Commission ultimately recommended that the City of Fort Dodge change to the council - manager structure. Chairman Kuhlman stated, “almost all cities with the population of Fort Dodge and larger use the council-manager system. Having a professionally trained city manager to oversee the multimillion-dollar budget and complex operations of a city the size of Fort Dodge is greatly needed and just made sense.”

The council–manager governing system was born out of the U.S. progressive reform movement at the turn of the 20th century to combat corruption and unethical activity within local government by promoting nonpolitical management that is effective, transparent, responsive, and accountable. It was first used in 1908 in Staunton, Virginia. Thereafter, the plan's popularity enjoyed steady growth, and then after World War II, this form of governing experienced dramatic growth across the nation. At that time, many cities were confronted with long lists of needed services and improvements that had backlogged from the Depression years of the 1930s. Faced with such challenges, many municipalities adopted the council-manager system which has been especially attractive to small and medium-sized cities. Today, it is used in most American municipalities with populations of 10,000 to 500,000 and is the most popular structure of local government in the United States.

The council-manager form of government recognizes the critical role of elected officials to map out a collective vision for the community, address community issues, and adopt policies that direct the operation of the city. All power and authority to set policy rests with the city council, the elected governing body. The council-manager form of government combines the strong political leadership of elected officials with the effective managerial experience of an appointed city manager who is devoted to managing the day-to-day operations of the city and providing effective delivery of services to the residents.

City council members and the mayor are elected by the voters of the city to represent their community. Council members are responsive to residents’ needs and wishes. Because decisions on policy and the future of the community are made by the elected city council rather than a single individual, council-manager governments are designed to engage and involve their residents in decision-making. Residents guide their community by communicating with the mayor and their elected council members, serving on boards and commissions, and participating in visioning and strategic planning meetings.

To ensure that policies are carried out and that the entire community is properly served, the city council appoints a professional manager based on his/her education, experience, skills, and abilities (and not their political allegiances). The city manager carries out the policies established by the elected governing body with the responsibility of providing the effective and efficient delivery of city services. If the manager is not responsive to the governing body or is not meeting their expectations, the city council has the authority to terminate the manager at any time.

The mayor in a council-manager system presides over council meetings, assigns agenda items to committees, facilitates communication and understanding between elected and appointed officials, and assists the city council in setting goals and advocating policy decisions. The mayor provides leadership to the council but does not vote on issues before the council. The mayor also has ceremonial duties representing the community as the ceremonial head of the city.

Today, the council-manager system remains successful, as evidenced by its widespread adoption across thousands of cities across the U.S., and studies show that it leads to more efficient city management. This system is effective because it separates political leadership from professional administration. This separation enhances efficiency and professional management and allows for greater administrative continuity because appointed city managers are not subject to the same political whims and changes as elected officials.