Dr. Peter Pirnejad, ICMA-CM, is the executive director of the Davenport Institute for Public Engagement and Civic Leadership at Pepperdine University’s School of Public Policy. He previously served as a city manager and in other local government executive roles. He can be reached at peter.pirnejad@pepperdine.edu.

It’s the morning after an election, and a candidate who campaigned on fixing a broken city hall or exposing mismanagement has won their election. The challenge for city managers is not how to stop the disruption but how to turn a voter-backed demand for change into lawful, collective governance without sacrificing staff morale or organizational effectiveness.

A reform-minded council member is not inherently a threat to professional management. They may have raised concerns that residents were voicing for years or forced an overdue conversation. Treating every challenge to the status quo as a personnel problem is both politically shortsighted and inconsistent with the manager’s nonpartisan role.

The more useful question is how to pursue change. Some reformers are constructive, pressing hard while respecting the governing process. Other reformers remain within legal and ethical boundaries but bypass roles, overwhelm staff, personalize disagreement, or use public conflict as a governing style. A smaller number of reformers may cross a legal or ethical line. Each situation requires a different response from the city manager.

Separate the message from the method

A city manager’s first task is to listen for the legitimate issue beneath the rhetoric. What did the council member promise? Which residents or experiences shaped that promise? What would success look like? Answering those questions does not require the manager to validate inaccurate claims or accept inappropriate conduct. It shows that the organization is taking the election result seriously.

This distinction matters because a new member may see the manager as the author of prior council policy rather than the professional charged with carrying it out. In a council-manager form of government, the manager implements the direction of the council as a body. When the council’s priorities lawfully change, the manager’s work changes with them.

The manager should therefore give the new member the same access to information and professional attention provided to every colleague. Equal service, however, does not turn one member’s campaign agenda into organizational direction. The manager can explain the process, relevant constraints, and the council support needed to act. This approach validates the member’s right to pursue change while preserving the authority of the full council.

Use the first 90 days well

The best time to establish expectations is before any conflict occurs. Early meetings should combine listening with practical onboarding. Along with the basics of municipal finance and operations, a new member should understand the council-manager relationship, California’s open meeting requirements, public records obligations, elected-staff boundaries, and the city’s communication protocols.

This should not feel like a lecture on why nothing can be done. Tie each rule to the member’s goals. If a priority requires public engagement, budget analysis, or action by the full council, map that path. Identify an early, achievable step that demonstrates movement without displacing adopted priorities or promising an outcome the manager cannot deliver.

Managers also need to examine their own approach. Technical expertise is not enough if they deliver information in a way that feels defensive, dismissive, or designed to exhaust a proposal. A manager may need to listen longer, explain constraints earlier, present choices more clearly, or spend more time building trust.

Adaptation is part of professional leadership. Capitulation is not. A manager should never alter a professional recommendation to please one member, conceal consequences, give preferential access, or compromise ethical duties. The goal is to help the member govern effectively, not to become an advocate for one member against the rest of the council.

Set boundaries before they become public battles

Role clarity is easiest to maintain when expectations are specific. Council-adopted norms and communication protocols can identify how information requests are handled, when requests return to the full council, and how concerns about employees are routed through the manager. Applied consistently, those practices protect both the reformer and the organization from claims of favoritism.

When a council member bypasses the manager, pressures employees, or criticizes staff from the dais, the manager must act. In a public meeting, that may mean calmly redirecting the discussion to the policy issue and taking responsibility for addressing performance concerns through the appropriate process. Even when an employee is struggling, public interrogation by a council member can undermine due process, morale, and the manager’s ability to supervise.

A private conversation should follow. Describe the conduct and its operational impact without assigning motives. Start from the possibility that the council member does not understand how their behavior is landing. Restate the boundary, offer a workable channel for the concern, and be clear about what will happen if the pattern continues.

Professionalism does not require a manager to absorb unlimited mistreatment. Staff members watch how the council treats the manager. If sustained public degradation goes unanswered, employees may reasonably conclude that similar conduct toward them will be tolerated. Protecting the manager’s role is therefore part of protecting the workplace.

Keep the full council responsible

One difficult relationship should not become a private contest between a manager and a council member. The mayor and full council are responsible for their governing culture. If repeated conduct conflicts with adopted norms or harms the organization’s work, the manager should describe the impact in neutral, concrete terms and ask the council to address it.

That conversation requires political judgment. The manager should not recruit allies or isolate a council member. The focus should remain on shared rules, impacts to service levels, and the council’s ability to govern. Depending on the circumstances, useful tools may include a governance workshop, facilitated discussion, clearer protocols, or direct intervention by the mayor.

If conduct becomes unlawful or seriously unethical, the response changes. The manager should document appropriately and seek fact-specific advice from the city attorney and other responsible professionals. Fear of losing a job is not a reason to normalize escalating misconduct. At the same time, managers should avoid making public legal conclusions on their own.

Protect the capacity to lead

Prolonged conflict can distort a manager’s judgment. Criticism that is political rather than technical may still erode confidence, cause a manager to second-guess routine decisions, and affect family life. Seeking mental health support is essential to preserving sound judgment under sustained personal and political attacks. Supporting a city manager’s mental health helps sustain effective leadership, prevent burnout, and retain experienced professionals in public service.

Managers should also accurately assess the governing relationship. One hostile member does not necessarily mean the manager has lost the council. If the rest of the council supports the manager and the organization remains effective, the conflict may be difficult but manageable.

There are also times when the relationship is no longer repairable, the manager is no longer the right fit, or conflict prevents the organization from moving forward. Leaving in those circumstances can be an act of professional judgment rather than an admission of failure.

The most effective response to disruption is neither resistance nor surrender. It is disciplined openness. As city manager, validate legitimate concerns, create a fair route from campaign promise to council action, adjust your leadership style to engage constructively with the reformer’s priorities, and enforce boundaries that protect staff and the institution. Done well, the energy that arrived to shake up city hall can become the energy that helps it work better.