Then there is the mayor's appointing power, which is perhaps the most important among his various prerogatives. With the exception of the few administrative officials who are elected by the people, or chosen by the council, the chief positions in the city's service are filled by the appointees of the mayor. In cities under the commission form of government this power is exercised by the commission as a body, but in most of those which retain the mayor-and council system the executive appointing power is of great importance. Not that the mayor has an unfettered hand in making appoint ments; in many cases his selections do not be come effective until confirmed by the city coun cil, or by the upper branch of it where there are two branches. In those cities which have es tablished civil service rules for appointments the mayor's selections, except for headships of the administrative departments, must be made from the lists of eligibles submitted by the civil service authorities. But in any case (save in cities under the commission or the city manager plan of local government) the mayor's appointing powers are of great importance and place large amounts of patronage in his hands.
Thirdly, the mayor has important powers of initiative in financial matters. In some cities he is responsible for the preparation of the munic ipal budget. In many he awards all the im portant contracts for public work. He also takes the first step in any exercise of the city's borrowing power. These, moreover, do not exhaust the list. He has many functions of a miscellaneous character. In fine, the office of mayor in the larger American cities carries a greater amount of power and responsibility than any municipal office in other countries.
Officials and not all the executive functions are committed to the mayor. Many administrative powers are exercised by various officials and boards, some of whom are directly elected by the people, others appointed by the mayor or by the city council, and still others in a few cases selected by the State au thorities. Chief among such officials are the city clerk, the city treasurer or city chamberlain, the comptroller or the auditor, and the com missioners in charge of various departments, for example, police, streets, fire-protection, water-supply, sanitation, 'parks, and so forth. Some departments, however, are controlled not by single commissioners but by boards of three, five or a larger quota of members. Such bodies are the board of education, the board of health, the overseers of the poor, the board of assessments and the like. In no two cities is there the same number of departments nor are the methods of departmental organization alike. What is done by a commissioner in one city is given to a board in another. One city, for example, may have a Commissioner of police, while in a neighboring municipality police affairs are in the hands of a police board.
This lack of any approach to uniformity in the number, methods of selection, terms, salaries and duties of the administrative offi cials is one of the outstanding characteristics of city government in the United States.
For many years, however, the drift has been in the direction of a more centralized administration. The mayor has been nearly everywhere given greater powers in the way of appointing and of controlling the heads of departments. The board system, formerly so much in vogue, has been giving way, especially in the larger communities. The tendency has been to put all the city departments, except those having charge of the schools, public health and charities, under single heads. In some cities even the last two of the three de partments named have been included. The board system, it is believed, does not make for that prompt and effective action which is so often needed in administrative work. More over, the disposition is to place those single heads of dep directly tinder the mayor's control, making him solely responsible for their selection and giving him power to remove them at will. Executive centralization has gone forward steadily although in many cities it is yet far from being complete.
Administrative Functions.— The powers and functions of municipal administrators are designated from three sources. Some are as signed by the general State laws. This is particularly true of such departments as educa tion, public health and finance. So far as these fields of administration are concerned the municipal officials are to a varying extent merely the local agents of the State in carrying out its general policy. Some powers and functions, in the second place, are set forth in the provisions of the city charter. Almost in variably the charter prescribes the authority and duties of the mayor, his relations with the city council and to the various administra tive officials and boards. As for the latter, the charter may, and in most cases does, define their general duties or it may leave these things to be determined by ordinance. That is the third method of assigning functions. The city coun cil by a series of ordinances may outline the way in which the various administrative de partments shall be organized, the work which each shall perform and the powers which each shalt exercise. With the growth of adminis trative problems in extent and difficulty, this has become the preferable method. The ordinances have greater flexibility than the charter; they can be more quickly and more easily amended. Reorganizations of depart ments, changes in the powers and functions of officials, many details of duty have to be changed from time to time as new administra tive problems arise or as old problems assume a different form. All this can be most satis factorily handled by the ordinance-making power, that is, by the city council with the assent of the mayor.