Balance of Power Struggles in City Government
February 4, 2026
by
MRSC Insight
Category:
City and Town Officials
Power struggles can and do happen between the executive and legislative branches at the city level, including:
- Authority to hire and fire staff
- Authority to direct staff
- Contracting authority
- Managing council meetings
- Mayor’s veto authority
This blog will touch on these struggles as they occur in code and second-class cities, providing insight on how to handle common conflicts that arise between the legislative and executive branches of city government.
First-class cities are governed by their unique charters and will therefore not be discussed. While similar to cities in many respects, towns have some legal differences (e.g., town mayors do not have veto authority) and therefore will also not be addressed.
Employee Hiring and Supervision
Who can hire and fire city employees? The general answer is that the power resides in the city’s executive branch—either the mayor (mayor-council city) or the city manager (manager-council city), and not the city council.
Some city codes do give the council a role in hiring and firing. For example, the City of Pullman’s municipal code requires council approval for hiring the city attorney and the community development director. (Note, however, that this is not an option for council-manager code cities.)
However, even if the charter or city code does not reserve any hiring or firing authority for the council, it is not completely powerless over personnel decisions. The council does have an indirect say in hiring and firing since the council controls the city’s purse strings. By passing or amending the budget, the council can either create a new position for the executive to fill or eliminate one that currently exists (requiring a termination).
By controlling the budget, the council can also reduce or increase compensation, which may result in the executive hiring a new position or an employee leaving due to lowered compensation or related factors.
Employee Supervision
Who manages city staff? The mayor or city manager is responsible for the day-to-day administration of the city and city staff, and councilmembers generally cannot give direct orders to staff (RCW 35A.13.120; RCW 35A.12.100; RCW 35.23.021).
Sometimes a councilmember will be displeased with a particular staff member or with the amount of time a project is taking and will want to act. If this happens, a councilmember should share their concerns with the mayor or manager and not directly with city staff. The city executive is the appropriate person to address regarding staff performance matters; it's outside the role of legislative body to get into this type of day-to-day issue.
Entering Into or Terminating a Contract
Only city councils have the authority to contract (RCW 35A.11.010; RCW 35A. 11.020; RCW 35.23.440), although councils commonly delegate some of this authority to department heads, such as the city manager or mayor. For example, Lynnwood has delegated the authority to enter into contracts of $100,000 or less to the mayor.
Sometimes, power struggles arise when the council authorizes the mayor or city manager to execute a contract, but the mayor/manager refuses to do so. If the administrator refuses to execute a contract authorized by council, the council could direct the mayor pro tem or the entire council to sign the agreement.
Other times, power struggles arise in contracted professional services, such as contracts with law firms for city attorney services. Essentially, unless the position of city attorney has been made an appointed office under local code, then the authority to terminate the contract resides in the council. This can seem confusing since the city administrator is typically responsible for hiring or firing employees, but a contracted law firm is not an employee. If the city attorney is not an appointed office, then the council, not the administrator, decides whether to retain the firm’s services. The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed this reasoning in Koler v. Black Diamond (2021). For more information see our blog, How Cities and Towns Acquire Legal Services.
Council Meetings
Cities face various issues with regard to control of council meetings, including meeting agendas and council deliberations.
Who sets the council meeting agenda and manages the meeting?
The city council has the authority to establish the council meeting agenda (RCW 35A.12.100; RCW 35A.12.120).
Council rules of procedure will often delegate agenda preparation to the mayor, manager, or the city clerk, but the substance of the agenda ultimately is under the control of the council.
Who controls council discussion and deliberation?
During the meeting itself, the mayor is the presiding officer and is responsible for running the meeting (RCW 35A.12.100; RCW 35A.13.030; RCW 35.23.201). Ultimately, though, it is the council’s meeting and councilmembers are expected to participate and state their positions. As noted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bond v. Floyd (1966):
Legislators have an obligation to take positions on controversial political questions so that their constituents can be fully informed by them, and be better able to assess their qualifications for office; also so they may be represented in government debates by the person they have elected to represent them.
Councilmembers have a First Amendment right to share their viewpoints. As stated in Bond, “[t]he manifest function of the First Amendment in a representative government requires that legislators be given the widest latitude to express their views on issues of policy.”
Limits on council discussion can be adopted in local rules of procedure and the presiding officer (i.e., the mayor) is expected to enforce these rules. These limits could include, for example:
- Setting a meeting adjournment time for council meetings, like Puyallup; or
- Giving councilmembers a specified amount of time to speak, like Port Townsend.
What happens if a councilmember’s conduct at a public meeting is disruptive?
Local rules of procedure may also lay out a code of conduct for public meetings, which applies equally to the conduct of members of the public and of the governing body.
These same rules often address what happens if a councilmember violates the code, including verbal admonition, written reprimand, censure, or expulsion from the meeting at which the conduct is occurring. (RCW 42.30.050 allows the majority of the members of a governing body to clear the room and adjourn/reconvene a public meeting if it is interrupted in such a way as to render the orderly conduct of the meeting unfeasible.)
It should be noted that the city council as a body must direct a councilmember to leave a meeting, not just the presiding officer (e.g., mayor). Note, too, that this should only be done as a last resort, keeping in mind First Amendment protections for elected officials.
For more information see When First Amendment Rights and Public Meetings Clash.
Who has legal authority to call a special meeting under the Open Public Meeting Act?
Under RCW 42.30.080(1), either the presiding officer or a majority of the members of the governing body may call a special meeting of the governing body. For a mayor-council city, the presiding officer is a mayor.
See Special Meetings: Answering Some Frequently Asked Questions for more information.
Mayoral Vetoes
A mayor in a mayor-council city can veto an ordinance passed by the council, but this veto is only authorized for ordinances, not for any other council action (RCW 35A.12.100).
A mayor cannot veto contracts that are authorized by motion but may veto an ordinance authorizing a contract. Mayoral vetoes are not uncommon and, at the very least, allow the mayor to assert their opinion independent of council.
However, the council can override a mayoral veto by a majority plus one vote (RCW 35A.12.130; RCW 35.23.021). If the council does override the veto and the mayor still refuses to sign the ordinance, the ordinance is still valid even without the mayor’s signature (RCW 35A.12.130; RCW 35.23.021).
Final Thoughts
Power struggles are somewhat inevitable in city government but so long as the mayor/manager and the council have an effective working relationship, these struggles don’t have to be fatal.
MRSC offers a variety of blogs addressing City and Town Officials as well as other resources to help differentiate roles and responsibilities of the executive and legislative branches in city government, including:
MRSC is a private nonprofit organization serving local governments in Washington State. Eligible government agencies in Washington State may use our free, one-on-one Ask MRSC service to get answers to legal, policy, or financial questions.
