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 Timestamps
00:00 – 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.
Australia