Direction provided to the City divisions by the City Executive Office, mayor and deputy mayors

""

Objective of the assessment

The main question in the assessment was whether the City’s operating model and the direction provided to the City divisions by the City Executive Office, mayor and deputy mayors have developed according to the objectives of the reform of the management system and organisation as well as the City Strategy. The assessment included several sub-questions related to things such as the controllability of the City organisation and speeding up the decision-making process. It was also investigated whether the division of labour between the senior office holders, mayor, deputy mayors and City Executive Office is clear.

Conclusions

The control and direction of the City divisions and the City’s operating model have developed partly according to the objectives of the reform of the management system and organisation. The objective that was achieved the best was the objective of improving the controllability of the City organisation. The work of the City’s executive team in particular is considered to have improved control and direction. From the City divisions’ point of view, control and direction have become more fragmented, as they are provided by the mayor and deputy mayors, their assistants and various steering groups. The role of a deputy mayor in particular is considered to be unclear. Transparent communications to a City division’s staff regarding the division of labour between the deputy mayor and the City division’s management would clarify matters.

The strong role defined for the city manager in the Administrative Regulations requires a great deal, as the management of the City Executive Office alone would already fill up one person’s working days. It seems that the duties of the city manager are written for a strong leader in the Administrative Regulations, but the role of the city manager has not formed a counterforce to the mayor in practice.

From the City divisions’ point of view, the City Executive Office’s divisions operate like silos. Another thing that is considered to be a problem is the fact that the City Executive Office prepares policies for the City divisions to implement but does not involve the City divisions sufficiently in joint preparation work. The City divisions also feel that the City Executive Office does not sufficiently understand the everyday work of the City divisions.

The Audit Committee concludes that

the deputy mayors and the executive directors of the City divisions must

  • clarify the division of labour between the deputy mayor and the management of the City division to the division’s staff.

the City Board must

  • assess the appropriateness of the tasks assigned to the city manager in the Administrative Regulations.

the City Executive Office must

  • improve the coordination between its own divisions;
  • involve the City divisions in the preparation of the City’s common policies at a sufficiently early stage;
  • improve the dialogue between the City Executive Office and City divisions by participating in and familiarising itself with the City divisions’ operations.

Were the contents of this article useful to you?

Comments

Tuomo Valokainen (not verified)

Wed, 04/22/2020 - 12:48

Apulaispormestari. Tämä käsite on monille kansalaisille täysin etäinen ja outo käsite, joka ei tue kaupunkilaisten jokapäiväisiä tarpeita. Pitkään on ollut Pormestari ja Apulaispormestari, joihin ei kuitenkaa saa yhteyttä mitenkään. Miksi tällaiset virat on -ei tiedetä.

Add new comment

Restricted HTML

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a href hreflang> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote cite> <code> <ul type> <ol start type> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <h2 id> <h3 id> <h4 id> <h5 id> <h6 id>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.

In Assessment Report: