Why does OKC use a council-manager structure over mayor-council? I've always wondered why.

According to this source (http://www.nlc.org/build-skills-and-networks/resources/cities-101/city-structures/forms-of-municipal-government) the majority of the 30 largest cities in the US use a mayor-council structure.

Just wondering if anyone knew why we chose one over the other and what the advantages/disadvantages of that are.

Well in Philly I know the council is the legislature and the mayor is the executive (not sure if that's what you mean by mayor-council) and they are full-time and partisan and such. I've always kind of liked how ours was more "simple" and "light-weight" by comparison.

Council-manager is viewed as more, um, businesslike; the original progressives embraced it because it cut out the spoils system, where the mayor appoints all his friends.

Council-manager is viewed as more, um, businesslike; the original progressives embraced it because it cut out the spoils system, where the mayor appoints all his friends.

Yeah, it totally stopped that kind of cronyism....