Local Government, agency organized to provide and supervise administrative, fiscal,

and other services to the people who reside within its territorial boundaries. It is the level

of government most directly accountable to the public. In the U.S. local governmental

units consist of five major types: county, town and township, municipality, special

district, and school district.

COUNTRY GOVERNMENT

Organized county governments exist in every state of the U.S. except Connecticut

and Rhode Island; they are called boroughs in Alaska and parishes in Louisiana. There

are also a few independent cities in Maryland, Missouri, and Virginia that exercise

county responsibilities.

Counties have a local authority, most often called the county board of

commissioners or board of supervisors, which levies taxes; performs various

administrative, legislative, and judicial functions; and has some power over county

officials. In many cases, however, this structure has been modified to include either an

appointed manager or an elected executive to administer the governing board's policy

TOWN AND TOWNSHIP GOVERNMENT

Township units serve people in 20 states of the U.S. The category includes areas

designated as towns in several states, as plantations in Maine, and as locations in New

Hampshire. In New England the town meeting, or primary assembly of voters, convening
annually, elects officers, makes appropriations, and has legislative powers. Governments

in the other states are more closely patterned after those of municipalities.

MUNICIPALITIES

Municipal or city government (including that of villages, boroughs, and

incorporated towns) serves people in more than 19,000 municipalities. Nearly all such

governments are patterned after one of the three following plans: the mayor-council plan;

the council-manager plan; and the commission plan.

SPECIAL DISTRICTS

In order to meet various public needs more efficiently, special districts have been

created throughout the U.S., each often concerned with a single service such as sewerage,

parks and recreation, fire protection, soil and water conservation, hospitals, or libraries.

Often their boundaries are not coterminous with other local jurisdictions, thereby creating

questions of jurisdictional overlapping. Most districts are administered by a board with

members called commissioners, trustees, or supervisors; board members may be either

appointed or elected. With the establishment of new and more extensive suburban areas

near large cities, the number of special districts continues to increase.

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

School districts are special districts concerned with the administration and

operation of public schools. They exist in the U.S. as independent, local governmental

units. Local authority is vested in a board, usually directly elected by the voters of the
school district. Because of consolidation and reorganization, the number of independent

school districts is slowly decreasing.

INTRODUCTION

Municipal Government, in the United States, public corporation chartered by a state

legislature to provide and supervise the governmental services and activities of an urban
subdivision in that state. Technically, under U.S. and English law, the term municipal
government includes incorporated towns, townships, villages, special districts, school
districts, and boroughs. As used in this article, however, the term refers primarily to the
government of American urban communities and cities.

HISTORY

The first urban centers in the American colonies were patterned after the English
boroughs, with each borough receiving its charter from the king of England or from one
of his representatives in the colonies. These colonial boroughs were usually governed by
aldermen and councilmen, who were generally elected, and by a mayor and a recorder,
the legal adviser to the council, who were appointees of the governor of the colony.
During the entire colonial period no more than 24 urban communities sought borough
charters. Where chartered boroughs did exist, the colonial assemblies often modified the
charters, thus establishing the practice of central legislative regulation and supervision of
local government.

The New England townspeople preferred the town meeting, which they considered more
democratic, and the Crown never attempted to force the New Englanders to accept
written charters for their towns. The more densely populated areas were divided into
precincts or wards, and selectmen, representing their constituents, made decisions for the
community. Town meetings and representative town meetings are still used in several
New England municipalities, but for the most part this method of governing is not
practical for large municipalities.

Four major forms of government—weak-mayor-council, strong-mayor-council,

commission plan, and council-manager plan—evolved from town meetings. All these
local governmental forms make use of an elected body of representatives, called a
council, commission, or board. Members of the council are elected either by voters within
a particular boundary, called a district, ward, or precinct, or by the voters at large. Some
cities incorporate both methods. The forms of government differ in the authority and
appointing power of the centrally elected figure.

WEAK-MAYOR-COUNCIL PLAN

The oldest type of local government, the weak-mayor-council plan, was universal until
the latter part of the 19th century. Under this plan the mayor, elected by the voters at
large, usually has limited appointive and veto powers and little control over the city
administration. The council, elected either by wards or by the voters at large, is vested
with both legislative and executive powers, including the authority to appoint and
supervise administrative department heads. Some municipalities were handicapped by
this form of government, since administrative powers were shared independently and no
single group or person could be effective. In such cases, the council may hire a chief
administrative officer to oversee administrative functions.

STRONG MAYOR COUNCIL PLAN

The most common form of municipal government in the U.S. is the strong-mayor-council
plan. It has its origins in the political reform movements of the late 19th century and
conforms to the general 20th-century trend of strengthening the powers of chief
executives at all levels of government. Under this plan the mayor, elected by the voters at
large, has considerable appointive and removal powers, a strong veto power, almost
complete control of administrative department heads, and full responsibility for the city
budget. The council, which is usually smaller under this system, is restricted mainly to
lawmaking functions. Another feature of this plan is the reduction of elective offices in
the city government.

COMMISSION PLAN

The commission form of municipal government was adopted by the city of Galveston,
Texas, in 1901, following a hurricane that had devastated the city the previous year. The
mayor-council system, under which Galveston had been governed, was suspended by the
state legislature during the crisis and was replaced by a commission composed of five
members. Initially appointed but thereafter popularly elected, each of the commissioners
was responsible for a single, different phase of the local administration. The commission
plan proved so effective that it was widely adopted throughout the nation, and it appeared
to offer an alternative to the control of cities by party machines. Certain potential
drawbacks, however, may render the plan ineffective. A serious dispute among the
members of the commission over a matter of policy can cause delay and confusion in the
handling of urgent municipal affairs. Consequently, many cities that tried the commission
plan have reverted to the mayor-council plan or adopted the newer council-manager plan.
Others have retained the commission plan but have added an appointed official
responsible for overall administrative oversight, without formally adopting the council-
manager form.

COUNCIL MANAGER PLAN

Under the council-manager plan of municipal government, a popularly elected council is

responsible for making laws. It also selects and employs an authority, usually called the
city manager, a professional in the field of municipal administration, to manage the day-
to-day affairs of the city and direct its administrative agencies. In cities with a population
of more than 10,000, the council-manager plan is the most common local governmental
form. Moreover, many cities, towns, and counties that have not actually adopted the
council-manager form as originally conceived have provided for an appointed official
who is responsible for general administration.

FINANCING MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

Most of the revenue for local governments is received by taxing property. Other sources
of income are user fees, dividends from investment, special assessments, sale of property,
and federal grants. While local governments' expenditures sometimes exceed revenues,
with their greatest expense in the area of education, many local governments are legally
bound to a balanced budget. In addition to education, some services normally provided
by the municipality are public safety, health services, sewage collection and treatment,
transportation systems, and park and recreation facilities.

TREND TOWARD REGIONALISM

A need to develop a closer and more workable relationship between the different units of
government became apparent in the mid-20th century. County-city and city-city mergers
occurred, creating larger governmental units. The new municipalities could then offer
more efficient services to the people. Another form of unification, metropolitan councils
of governments, were created by groups of local governments in an area who voluntarily
got together to work cooperatively on common areawide problems. One example is the
Association of Bay Area Governments established in 1961 in the San Francisco area.

The national government in the 1990s sought to upgrade local government by delegating
some limited powers to local subdivisions and by encouraging people to participate in
community affairs. Local autonomy was balanced, however, against the need to ensure
effective political and administrative control from Manila, especially in those areas where
communist or Muslim insurgents were active. In practice, provincial governors gained
considerable leverage if they could deliver a bloc of votes to presidential or senatorial
candidates. Control over provinces generally alternated between two rival aristocratic
families.

During Marcos's authoritarian years (1972-86), a Ministry of Local Government was

instituted to invigorate provincial, municipal, and barangay governments. But, Marcos's
real purpose was to establish lines of authority that bypassed provincial governments and
ran straight to Malacañang. All local officials were beholden to Marcos, who could
appoint or remove any provincial governor or town mayor. Those administrators who
delivered the votes Marcos asked for were rewarded with community development funds
to spend any way they liked.
After the People's Power Revolution, the new Aquino government decided to replace all
the local officials who had served Marcos. Corazon Aquino delegated this task to her
political ally, Aquilino Pimentel. Pimentel named officers in charge of local governments
all across the nation. They served until the first local elections were held under the new
constitution on January 18, 1988. Local officials elected in 1988 were to serve until June
1992, under the transitory clauses of the new constitution. Thereafter, terms of office
were to be three years, with a three-term limit.

Organization

The 1987 Constitution retains the three-tiered structure of local government. There were
seventy-three provinces in 1991. The province was the largest local administrative unit,
headed by the elected governor and aided by a vice governor, also elected. Other officials
were appointed to head offices concerned with finance, tax collection, audit, public
works, agricultural services, health, and schools. These functionaries were technically
subordinate to the governor but also answered to their respective central government
ministries. Lower ranking functionaries, appointed by the governor, were on the
provincial payroll.

Chartered cities stood on their own, were not part of any province, did not elect
provincial officials, and were not subject to any provincial taxation, but they did have the
power to levy their own taxes. As of 1991, there were sixty-one chartered cities headed
by a mayor and a vice mayor. The mayor had some discretionary power of local
appointment.

Municipalities were subordinate to the provinces. In 1991 there were approximately

1,500 municipalities. At the lowest level, with the least autonomy, were barangays, rural
villages and urban neighborhoods that were called barrios until 1973. In 1991 there were
about 42,000 barangays.

Various reorganization schemes have been undertaken to invigorate local government.

One of the most far-reaching and effective was the creation of a Metro Manila
government in the mid-1970s to bring the four cities and thirteen municipalities of the
capital region under a single umbrella. Metro Manila is an example of what geographers
call the Southeast Asian primate city, a single very large city that is the center of industry,
government, education, culture, trade, the media, and finance. No other Philippine city
rivaled Manila; all others were in a distinctly lesser league. Continued rapid population
growth meant that the boundaries of Metro Manila were expected to expand in the 1990s.

During martial law, the provinces were grouped into twelve regions, and that
arrangement was continued in the Apportionment Ordinance appended to the 1987
Constitution. Because these regions did not have taxing powers or elected officials of
their own, however, they were more an administrative convenience for the departments of
the national government than a unit of genuine local importance. In 1991 approximately
90 percent of government services were provided by the national government. Attempts
by Aquino to decentralize delivery of some services were resisted by members of
Congress because such moves deprived them of patronage.

The single biggest problem for local government has been inadequate funds. Article 10 of
the Constitution grants each local government unit the power to create its own sources of
revenue and to levy taxes, but this power is "subject to such guidelines and limitations as
the Congress may provide." In practice, taxes were very hard to collect, particularly at the
local level where officials, who must run for reelection every three years, were concerned
about alienating voters. Most local government funding came from Manila. There is a
contradiction in the Constitution between local autonomy and accountability to Manila.
The Constitution mandates that the state "shall ensure the autonomy of local
governments," but it also says that the president "shall exercise general supervision over
local governments." The contradiction was usually resolved in favor of the center.

Regional Autonomy

By the 1990s, Philippine nationalism had not fully penetrated two regions of the country
inhabited by national minorities: the Muslim parts of Mindanao and the tribal highlands
of northern Luzon. Some Muslims and hill tribespeople did not consider themselves
Filipinos, although they were citizens. Muslim separatism has a very long history. The
Spaniards, Americans, and Japanese all had difficulty integrating the fiercely independent
Moros into the national polity, and independent governments in Manila since 1946 have
fared little better. The Moro insurgency has waxed and waned but never gone away.
Enough Muslims participated in the 1987 elections to elect two of the twenty-four
senators, but continuing land disputes were major factors preventing reconciliation
between Christians and Muslims in Mindanao. The grievances of tribal groups, such as
the Ifugao and Igorot, in northern Luzon were of more recent origin, having been stoked
by ill-considered Marcos administration dam-building schemes that entailed flooding
valleys in the northern Luzon cordillera where the tribal groups lived. When Aquino
came to power, she was confronted with a Moro National Liberation Front demand for
separation from the Philippines, and a Cordillera People's Liberation Army allied with the
New People's Army. Aquino boldly negotiated a cease-fire with the Moro National
Liberation Front, and her constitutional commissioners provided for the creation of
autonomous regions in Muslim parts of Mindanao and tribal regions of northern Luzon.

Article 10 of the Constitution directed Congress to pass within eighteen months organic
acts creating autonomous regions, providing that those regions would be composed only
of provinces, cities, and geographic areas voting to be included in an autonomous region.
Congress passed a bill establishing the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao with
Cotabato City designated as the seat of government, and Aquino signed it into law on
August 1, 1989. The required plebiscite was set for November 19, 1989, in thirteen
provinces in Mindanao and the island groups stretching toward Borneo. The plebiscite
campaign was marred by violence, including bombings and attacks by rebels. Aquino
flew to Cotabato on November 6, 1990, to formally inaugurate the Autonomous Region
in Muslim Mindanao. She had already signed executive orders devolving to the
Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao the powers of seven cabinet departments: local
government; labor and employment; science and technology; public works and highways;
social welfare and development; tourism; and environment and natural resources. Control
of national security, foreign relations, and other significant matters remained with the
national government. Because many of the provinces to be included actually had
Christian majorities, and because the Moro National Liberation Front, dissatisfied with
what it perceived to be the limitations of the new law, urged a boycott, only four
provinces (Tawitawi, Sulu, Maguindanao, and Lanao del Sur) elected to join the
Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. Cotabato City itself voted not to join. So, a
new capital had to be identified. In 1991 Maranaos, Maguindanaos, and Tausugs were
disputing where the capital should be. Indications were that the government of the
autonomous region would not have supervisory power over local government officials.

Congress passed a similar law creating a Cordillera Autonomous Region, but in a

referendum held in five provinces (Abra, Benguet, Mountain, Kalinga-Apayao, and
Ifugao) on January 29, 1990, autonomy failed in all provinces except Ifugao. The reasons
for rejection were thought to be fear of the unknown and campaigning for a no vote by
mining companies that feared higher taxation. In 1991 the Supreme Court voided the
Cordillera Autonomous Region, saying that Congress never intended that a single
province could constitute an autonomous regio