Fresno has just sworn in its third mayor under the strong-mayor system, and you don't hear many complaints about the structure of local government these days. That was not the case in the early 1990s, when city residents had finally had their fill of a system that produced seven "mini-mayors" on a dysfunctional City Council.

A charter review committee was appointed to make recommendations to the City Council on the best system to govern a growing city with urban problems and a City Hall climate that one former city manager called a "political pesthole." The council-manager system was no longer effective in this highly politicized environment.

The problem was that the mayor of Fresno was just one of seven council members, without the clout to get the things done, even though the public expected more from the holder of the city's top elected post. The mayor had ceremonial duties, but not a lot of authority under the council-manager system.

In 1992, Fresno's charter committee recommended a strong-mayor system to bring more voter accountability to City Hall. Under the council-manager system, the responsibility for problems and successes was a moving target, depending on which four council members voted for a particular issue.

"Under our current council-manager form of government, decisive leadership by the mayor and city manager is extremely difficult because all members of the council and the mayor constantly want the full and undivided attention of the city manager," the charter committee said in its report. "Fresno's past record indicates that the average manager's tenure is three years, which does not give rise to the opportunity to develop a common 'vision' with the council."

Bill Stewart, who chaired the charter committee, said the management of the city was getting more complicated and the decisions were getting more political. Council members are elected from districts, and the mayor is the only city officeholder who runs citywide.

"The mayor would be the focal point under the new system and be accountable to all the voters in the city," Stewart said.

The City Council agreed that a change needed to be made and put the strong-mayor proposal on the ballot in 1993. Fresno voters overwhelmingly passed the measure, and wisely instituted a four-year transition period to the new system of governance.

The mayor would become the city's chief executive officer, with control over the budget and the authority to hire and fire the city manager. That put the city staff under the mayor's control through the appointed city manager. The mayor also would have veto power over most issues that came before the council.

Former Mayor Jim Patterson has a unique perspective of the system because he was mayor for one term under the council-manager system and then became Fresno's first strong mayor in 1997.

"The mayor was expected to lead the city under the old form, yet the mayor only chaired the council meeting and was but one vote," Patterson said. "The executive form created a very clear line of priority throughout the entire city operation. It is the difference between night and day. … There is now a clarity of purpose and a commitment to supply the resources that the purpose requires."

There were growing pains as the strong-mayor system got off to a rocky start. The council complained that its power had been diminished with the change. That particular criticism had City Hall observers rolling their eyes. It should have seemed obvious to council members that if the mayor is going to have more power, the council is going to have less.

But you don't hear much sniping about the strong-mayor system now, as the mayor and council members have settled into their new roles.

"Strain and stress come from change … and power changed very dramatically," said former Councilman Garry Bredefeld, who served on the council during the first years of the strong-mayor system. "Five council members going in the same direction can override mayoral vetoes."

Jim Boren is the editorial page editor of The Fresno Bee.