Ordinance No Authorizing And Directing The Mayor: Fill & Download for Free

The power of the Mayor depends on 2 things:The type of city government structure.The personal charisma and powers of persuasion of the Mayor.There are 5 basic forms of municipal government. The format most pertinent to this question, as far as the power of the Mayor is the Mayor-Council format, although as you see below, some of the cities have chosen to make their mayors weak.Characteristics of a "strong" mayor:The mayor is the chief executive officer, centralizing executive power.The mayor directs the administrative structure, appointing and removing of department heads.While the council has legislative power, the mayor has veto power.The council does not oversee daily operations.Characteristics of a "weak" mayor:The council is powerful, with both legislative and executive authority.The mayor is not truly the chief executive, with limited power or no veto power.The council can prevent the mayor from effectively supervising city administration.There may be many administrative boards and commissions that operate independently from the city government.Mayoral PowersMayor-CouncilCharacteristics include:Mayor is elected separately from the council, is often full-time and paid, with significant administrative and budgetary authorityDepending on the municipal charter, the mayor could have weak or strong powersCouncil is elected and maintains legislative powersSome cities appoint a professional manager who maintains limited administrative authorityOccuring in 34% of cities surveyed by International City/County Management Association (ICMA), this is the second most common form of government. It is found mostly in older, larger cities, or in very small cities, and is most popular in the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest. Cities with variations in the mayor-council form of government are New York, New York; Houston, Texas; and Minneapolis, Minnesota.Forms of Municipal GovernmentOf the cities in your list, (Boston, SF, NYC, LA, Chicago, Philadelphia, Austin, Seattle, DC and Portland) all but Austin and Portland have the Mayor-Council form of government, and thus have strong mayors.Austin has the most common form of municipal government, the Council-Manager format.Council-ManagerCharacteristics include:City council oversees the general administration, makes policy, sets budgetCouncil appoints a professional city manager to carry out day-to-day administrative operationsOften the mayor is chosen from among the council on a rotating basisThis is the most common form of government. According to surveys by the International City/County Management Association (ICMA), this form of government has grown from 48% usage in 1996 to 55% usage in 2006. It is most popular in cities with populations over 10,000, mainly in the Southeast and Pacific coast areas. Some examples are Phoenix, Arizona; Topeka, Kansas; Salt Lake City, Utah and Rockville, Maryland.Forms of Municipal GovernmentIn this type of government, the mayor has a legislative role (leading the council and presiding on votes over new ordinances and policies) but no where near as much power as in the Mayor-Council format. This is when the Mayor's powers of persuasion are most important.Portland has the Commission form of municipal government.CommissionCharacteristics include:Voters elect individual commissioners to a small governing boardEach commissioner is responsible for one specific aspect, such as fire, police, public works, health, financeOne commissioner is designated as chairman or mayor, who presides over meetingsThe commission has both legislative and executive functionsThe commission form of city government is the oldest form of government in the U.S., but exists today in less than 1% of cities. It typically occurs in cities with populations below 100,000, such as Sunrise, Florida and Fairview, Tennessee.Forms of Municipal GovernmentThis format has the weakest Mayor among the three. Again, persuasion is what will make the Mayor powerful.

These are all synonyms of each other, all sharing the same core meaning with only nuance or use as legal jargon providing the shading between these words.A decree is an official order by a governing body or agent. That order might be made by legislating a law or ordinance, or it might be an executive directive, such as Trump loves to use. Thus, “decree” is a pretty broad term.An edict is an official order from a person in authority. Thus it is a little more narrow, only covering the commandments of one person. I will also point out that the Latin origin of the word (edictum) transliterates to “something proclaimed”.A proclamation is actually an official announcement, usually of great importance. Thus you could use a proclamation to order a decree from the governing body or an edict from the mayor.An ordinance is a piece of legislation created by a municipal body. The laws of a city are ordinances. But the secondary meaning is exactly the same as decree or edict, an authoritative order. Thus the President could issue an ordinance, meaning exactly the same thing if they issued an edict. It derives from Latin for “out in order”, ordinare.

Surgery was basically taught in two manners. One was that of an apprenticeship with the local barber surgeons who typically controlled the education and who got to practice in their locality. They were derided as the empiricists by their learned counterparts but generally seem to have been able to perform most minor surgeries at a decent price.In France an ordinance of 1372 authorized barbers to treat “boils, tumors, and open wounds, if the wounds are not fatal,” This, undoubtedly merely recognized an existing practice. The barbers even took over the major therapeutic modality of blood letting. In dress the barber-surgeons were distinguished from the surgeons in that the former wore a short rather than a long robe.It is also noteworthy that among these (barber) surgeons there was specialization to the point that even learned surgeons generally left some surgeries to the barber surgeons. Think of things like removing bladder stones or couching cataract.It was during the Late Middle Ages that surgery also gained acceptance as a separate branch of formal university taught medicine. Students had to be literate in latin and were taught a variety of medical texts from the Ancient Greeks down to Arabs and contemporary Europeans. They were in some way privileged compared to surgeons from the rest of the planet because Christianity held fewer taboo’s against autopsies and dissections. It is not entirely clear but it seems like students had to attend a dissection at least once to get a good grasp of what the inside of a body actually looked liked.The below painting would have been unthinkable in much of the rest of the worldUniversity taught surgeons generally had an extensive training and on top of that some places instituted the practice of only allowing licences surgeons to perform. The licence usually being granted by a small body consisting of other surgeons who could question and possibly observe the skill.In the 13th century the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick tried to impose some form of certification and licencing in his dominions;No doctor shall practice after the completion of the five year period who has not practiced for an entire year under the direction of an experienced doctor. During the period of five years the masters shall teach in the schools the authenticated books of both Hippocrates and Galen, and shall instruct in the theory as well as in the practice of medicine. Moreover, we decree as a measure for the public health that no surgeon shall be admitted to practice who does not present testimonials from masters in the faculty of medicine, stating that he has studied for at least a year in that field of medicine which develops skill in surgery, in particular, that he has learned in the schools the anatomy of human bodies, and that he is proficient in that field of medicine without which incisions cannot be safely made nor fractures healed. The Shift of Medical Education into the Universities…In Paris in 1270 the medical curriculum required six years without a liberal arts degree and five and a half years with one. By 1350 having a Master of Arts degree saved 12 months from the period of medical training. At the end of the 14th century virtually all Paris medical graduates also were masters of Arts (3). At Bologna academic study was a little shorter: five years without a liberal arts degree and four years with this qualification…The other important members of the healing arts were the apothecaries and the herbalists. The latter were held to be inferior, as barbers were inferior to surgeons. Physicians were particularly concerned about the training and practices of the apothecaries because they were dependent on their services for the supply of medications. Inspection of apothecary shops was included among the ordinances of Frederick II early in the 13th century; it became required in Paris in 1353 (8, 20). Because most medicines were botanicals it seems a natural evolution that in England the early apothecaries largely were members of the guild of spicerers-spice merchants. This was still true well after 1312 when an organization of apothecaries already existed in London. As early as 1313 there was a court apothecary, one Odin the Spicer (26). In some ways the apothecaries had to be more learned than the surgeons or barbers, because they had to be able to read Latin, both to fill prescriptions and also, when available, to employ references. In France an apothecary’s apprenticeship lasted four years; its duration in England is uncertain. These practioners, like the physicians whom they served, largely remained in the cities, while the relatively untrained herbalists practiced in the countryside.Now the medical licencing appears in different places centuries apart but it was generally in place by the 15th and 16th century.Not that things always went that smoothly…Medical practice in fifteenth-century England is often seen as suffering from the low status and unregulated practice of which Thomas Linacre later complained. Unlike in many European cities, the provision of physic was uncontrolled, and while urban guilds oversaw surgery as a manual art, no comprehensive system of medical organisation or regulation existed. However, in a remarkable episode of the 1420s, a group of university-trained physicians and elite surgeons associated with Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, briefly established just such a system. While their efforts initially secured approval for a national scheme, it was only in the City of London that they succeeded in implementing their plans. The detailed ordinances of the collegiate ‘commonalty’ they founded provide a unique insight into their attitudes. Drawing on continental models, they attempted to control all medicine within the city by establishing a hierarchy of practitioners, preventing illicit and incompetent practice, and offering treatment to even the poorest Londoners. Yet they failed to appreciate the vested interests of civic politics: achieving these aims meant curtailing the rights of the powerful Grocers and the Barbers, a fact made clear by their adjudication of a case involving two members of the Barbers’ Company, and the Barbers’ subsequent riposte—a mayoral petition that heralded the commonalty’s end. Its founder surgeons went on to revitalise their Surgeons’ Fellowship, which continued independently of the Barbers until a merger in 1540; in contrast, the physicians withdrew from civic affairs, and physic remained entirely unregulated until episcopal licensing was instituted in 1511.…The right of regulation of surgery [in London] that was claimed in the ordinances of 1423, however, represented a direct attack on the Barbers. In much the same manner as the Drapers continued to assert their right of search and inspection of the Taylors’ cloth under the authority of their ordinances approved by the mayor and aldermen, so the 1423 ordinances gave the surgeons of the new commonalty the right to judge the work of the surgeons of the Barbers’ Company. The application of the 1421 proposals within the City would have been doomed to failure had the Barbers objected to the selection of Surgeons as the arbiters of licensing, for the royal ordinances would have been regarded as an infringement upon civic privilege. But, by moving to institute their ordinances through the authority of the Mayor, the commonalty initially circumvented opposition from the Barbers.…Not only physic, but also surgery, was to be regulated: ‘The lords of the king’s council at the time should have the power, by authority of the same parliament, to assign and designate an ordinance and punishment for such people as shall henceforth meddle in and exercise the practice of the said arts and are not skilled or licensed in them’. Those allowed to practise were defined separately, ‘as befits the same arts’, as ‘physicians in the universities, and surgeons among the masters of that art’. The initiative for the petition may have come from physicians, but the lords in parliament, drawing upon their experience in the French wars, had seen the virtue of applying these regulations also to surgery.Medical Practice, Urban Politics and Patronage: The London ‘Commonalty’ of Physicians and Surgeons of the 1420sNow to a modern medical student things like having to attend or perform a dissection and having to get a license to practice seem like standard things but they were actually rather novel at the time. To a degree though it paid dividends and by the late 16th and early 17th century the stereotype of all Europeans being doctors/surgeons was well established in Asia. In times of need Persian Shah’s, Mughal Emperors and Japanse Daimyo’s seem to have opted for European surgeons if they were around.