Structural change in local government is rare. Therefore, we don’t often get the opportunity to learn how it works. My three guests today, Jerry Andree, Toby Cordek, and Michael Foreman were invited to work with a group of engaged citizens in Millcreek Township, Erie County to shepard a community making its third attempt in fifteen years to restructure their local government. Millcreek is one of the largest second-class townships in Pennsylvania with nearly 55,000 residents, a sophisticated range of services, and all the complexity that comes with governing a community that size. Yet for decades, it has been run by three elected supervisors who, at their first meeting after each election, appoint themselves as the township’s full-time municipal administrators. This does not provide for a separation of powers between the people who set policy and the people who carry it out and creates a vacuum in the continuity of services. This episode is in many respects a rare master class in how to form a study commission and carry a recommendation through to the voters. But more importantly, it’s a frank, insider conversation about the dynamics behind the scenes, including the interviews, the resistance, the attacks, and what it takes to stay focused and transparent when the process gets hard. This podcast episode has been created in partnership with APMM, the association for professional municipal managers to enhance learning, leadership development and networking. Jerry Andree spent three decades as Township Manager of Cranberry Township in Butler County Pennsylvania and has been a steady presence in local government leadership across Pennsylvania. Even in retirement, he continues to teach, advise, and support communities working through complex challenges. Toby Cordek served more than 35 years as Town Manager of McCandless in Allegheny County and has worked across nearly every aspect of local government. Today, he continues to mentor leaders and support municipalities through consulting and executive search work. Michael Foreman brings over 30 years of experience with the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development, where he advised municipalities on policy, finance, and operations. He now continues that work as a consultant supporting local governments across the region. Be sure to follow PCC Local Time on your favorite player and subscribe to MuniSquare.Substack.com for more in-depth content on local government. 🎧 Episode Timestamps00:00 – Opening: Why this story matters Nancy frames the rarity of structural change in local government and introduces Millcreek as a “third attempt” story with real stakes. 01:30 – Guest introductions Jerry Andree, Toby Cordek, and Michael Foreman are introduced with their backgrounds and roles. 03:00 – What makes Millcreek different Three-member board of supervisors acting as full-time administrators—an unusual structure for a township of this size. 05:30 – The core problem emerges Lack of professional management; solicitor acting as de facto manager; growing complexity of the township. 07:45 – Why residents pushed for change Blended roles (legislative, executive, administrative) and growing disconnect between governance and community expectations. 09:00 – Public access and transparency issues Meeting times and structure raise questions about accessibility and responsiveness to residents. 10:30 – Clarifying the real issue Not about removing elected officials—but clarifying roles and introducing professional management. 12:00 – How a study commission works Michael walks through the legal process: ballot question, election, structure, and responsibilities. 15:00 – Inside the research process Interviews with department heads, supervisors, and comparisons with other townships. 17:00 – Why council-manager emerged as the best fit Separation of powers, stability, and professional administration. 19:00 – What the interviews revealed Lack of continuity, shifting oversight, and absence of administrative expertise. 21:00 – A “vacuum of continuity” Toby reflects on what was felt inside the organization—competence present, but no administrative anchor. 22:30 – Resistance from leadership Supervisors not supportive; difficult environment for employees and interviews. 23:30 – The decision point: vote for change Study commission evaluates options and moves toward a council-manager model. 27:00 – Voter approval and timeline to 2028 Final report, public hearing, and decisive vote; transition period begins. 28:00 – The “secret sauce” begins Shift from structure to human dynamics—how the commission actually worked together. 29:00 – Building trust and momentum Early meetings, “symbiosis,” and a nurturing leadership approach. 31:00 – Organizing the commission like a governing body Committees form; members begin practicing how a council operates. 32:30 – Facing attacks and staying grounded Public criticism, accusations, and the discipline to “keep the high ground.” 34:30 – Who were the commission members? Diverse, accomplished residents who largely didn’t know each other before serving. 36:30 – What made the group effective Patience, empathy, discipline—and a shared commitment to the community. 37:00 – Understanding resistance Cultural, political, and financial incentives behind opposition to change. 39:30 – The work is not finished Transition phase begins; questions about hiring a professional manager. 40:30 – The transition challenge No formal roadmap after the vote; need for a transition committee and continued leadership. 42:00 – Administrative code and control Who shapes the new system—and whether it enables or constrains the manager role. 45:00 – “Poison pills” to watch for Risks in implementation: micromanagement, weak role definition, hiring decisions. 47:00 – Signs of early progress Evening meetings added; continued civic engagement by commission members. 48:30 – One chance to get it right Importance of early leadership and governance alignment. 49:00 – The first manager will be tested Discussion of political pressure, expectations, and leadership resilience. 50:30 – What kind of leader is needed? Experience, toughness, and ability to navigate conflict and culture change. 52:00 – Community support for change Strong voter backing and desire for professional leadership. 53:00 – Closing reflections “You only get one opportunity to do it right.” 54:00 – Final thoughts: democracy in action Guests reflect on the meaning of the process and community engagement.
