The City of Champaign has a weak mayor. Nothing personally against the good mayor, but it is widely accepted that Steve Carter holds the power in Champaign.
The City of Urbana has a powerful mayor. Everyone now appreciates that if she wakes up on the wrong side of the bed, she might fire you in five minutes if you disagree with her. Score one for the strong mayor side making city employees more accountable.
The voters didn't elect Steve Carter and voters did elect Mayor Prussing. Score one for the strong mayor side.
Change can happen more quickly in Urbana. Score one for the strong mayor side.
The city staff of Urbana is going to do what the mayor says. The city of Champaign staff may or may not do what the mayor says. Score one for the strong mayor side.
Urbana city mayor can outline what priorities are for the city staff. Champaign city staff sets it's priorities according to the long term plan and it really doesn't seem to matter what mayor thinks the priorities should be. Score one for the strong mayor side.
In Champaign, everyone knows that it is not in your best interests not to disagree (too much) with city staff on something. In Urbana, if you disagree with city staff on something, the Mayor/council takes it under advisement. Score one for the strong mayor side.
In Champaign, the city staff seems to provide insulation from shady politics. Score one for the weak mayor.
In Champaign, things are looking pretty good overall. In Urbana, there are looking at very tough decisions in the near future. Score one (maybe more) for the weak mayor side.
We can look at two cities and see how they have progressed under these systems and determine which one we think is better based on results. Contrary to recent trends, I don't have a particular side that I favor. So which one is the better system? Am I missing something in my analysis? Am I just wrong on some assumptions?