Many ways to organize a town
New Jersey does not have one standard municipal government. State law offers a menu of forms, and each municipality operates under one of them. The differences matter because they decide who prepares the budget, who appoints department heads, who can veto ordinances and how many officials are elected. The idea behind a “mayor and council” is the common thread: an elected body that makes local laws, and a mayor who either leads it or runs the executive side separately.
This article explains the main forms in general terms. Municipalities have changed forms over time, and details are in each municipality’s charter or code, so those documents are the right sources for a specific place.
The basic division: legislative and executive
Government everywhere divides into two kinds of work.
- Legislative: passing ordinances, adopting a budget and setting policy.
- Executive: carrying out the laws, running departments, hiring staff and managing daily operations.
The forms below mainly differ in how they divide these jobs between a mayor, a council or committee, and any appointed professional manager.
The traditional forms
Before modern optional charters, New Jersey law provided several general forms, many of them older than the twentieth century.
- Borough form. Common in smaller communities. A mayor and a six-member council are elected. The mayor generally presides and votes only to break ties, and the council holds most power. The mayor may have a veto over council actions, which the council can override by a supermajority.
- Township form. A township committee, typically five members, is elected, and members choose one of themselves to serve as mayor each year. The committee both legislates and oversees administration.
- City form (older general law). Features a mayor and council with various arrangements, depending on the statute under which the city was organized.
- Town and village forms. Less common today, with their own statutory rules.
- Commission form. Under the Walsh Act, a small elected board of commissioners, each of whom leads a department such as public safety or public works. Voters choose the commissioners, who elect one as mayor. It combines legislative and executive power in the same people.
The Faulkner Act options
The Optional Municipal Charter Law, widely called the Faulkner Act, was passed in the 1950s. It lets voters adopt one of several set structures, often by referendum. Each was designed to separate roles more clearly or to bring in professional management.
- Mayor-council plans. The mayor is elected separately, is the chief executive and typically appoints department heads, subject to council approval in some cases. The council is the legislative body and generally can override a mayoral veto by a supermajority. This is the arrangement often called a strong-mayor system. Variants differ on the number of council seats and whether some are elected by ward.
- Council-manager plans. A council is elected and appoints a professional manager to run daily operations. The mayor’s role is usually more ceremonial or presiding. Such systems are meant to bring management expertise and reduce the direct role of politics in administration.
- Small municipality plan. A simplified form intended for smaller places, with a mayor and council and some administrative flexibility.
- Mayor-council-administrator. A hybrid in which a mayor and council share power with an appointed administrator who handles routine operations.
The Faulkner Act forms also come with rules about whether seats are elected at large, by ward or by a mix, and whether elections are partisan and when they are held. Some of these details connect to the local elections basics covered elsewhere.
Comparing strong-mayor and council-manager systems
| Feature | Strong mayor | Council-manager |
|---|---|---|
| Chief executive | Elected mayor | Appointed manager |
| Council role | Legislative; checks the mayor | Legislative and policy; hires and oversees the manager |
| Accountability | Directly to voters through the mayor | Through the council to voters |
| Typical strength | Clear single leader | Professional administration |
| Typical concern | Concentrated power | Less direct voter link to the executive |
This is a simplification. Real systems blend these traits, and each has supporters and critics. Some argue that a strong mayor offers accountability and speed, while others prefer a manager system for continuity and expertise. Neither is inherently better, and outcomes often depend on people and circumstances.
How a municipality changes its form
State law lets voters change forms, often by petition and referendum. A municipality might consider a change if residents want more professional management, a clearer separation of powers, or a different number of representatives. Changing the form can alter election schedules and terms, so the transition is usually spelled out in law.
Charters adopted in earlier decades often remain in place for a long time. The history of city incorporation in the early nineteenth century shows that many of today’s structures have older roots, even when the formal rules have been updated.
Why it matters to residents
Knowing the form helps answer practical questions.
- Who proposes the budget and can residents appeal to a single executive?
- Who appoints the police chief and other department heads?
- Which board approves contracts and what needs a public vote?
- How many officials are on the ballot, and are they chosen by ward or at large?
For a broader view of where these structures fit among county, school and state roles, see the overview of city government. Residents can follow decisions at public meetings, where agendas and minutes are public records.
For the current form and rules in a given place, the municipal clerk and the municipality’s code are the right sources. This is a general explanation and not legal advice.