Premium
CHANGING PRACTICES AND CONCEPTIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE FUNCTION IN URBAN GOVERNMENT: THE GREATER BRISBANE EXPERIENCE
Author(s) -
Tucker Doug
Publication year - 1994
Publication title -
australian journal of public administration
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.524
H-Index - 41
eISSN - 1467-8500
pISSN - 0313-6647
DOI - 10.1111/j.1467-8500.1994.tb01500.x
Subject(s) - chief executive officer , officer , legislation , cabinet (room) , public administration , government (linguistics) , function (biology) , management , political science , law , economics , engineering , mechanical engineering , linguistics , philosophy , evolutionary biology , biology
Since the commencement of the Greater Brisbane scheme in 1925, a number of different ways of organising the executive function have been provided for in the legislation. These have included a mayor elected at large as chief executive officer; an appointed city manager model, which was never activated; a quasi‐cabinet model, with the mayor being elected by the council rather than at large; a “weak” collective executive committee, akin to the early 20th century “board of control” arrangements in Canada, the mayor being elected at large and standing committees of council possessing substantial policy formulation powers; a stronger collective executive in theory, alongside which something akin to the American “strong mayor with chief administrative officer” model operated in practice; a strong collective executive, with the mayor once again elected indirectly, and weak standing committees of aldermen retained; a return to something like the original mayor‐as‐CEO arrangement; and finally, a strengthened version of the initial “mayor‐as‐CEO with chief administrative officer” model. These changes are traced chronologically and a general assessment is offered in conclusion.