MANAGEMENT FELLOW 2025

Salary : $43,680.00 Annually

Location : KS 67202, KS

Job Type : Management Fellow

Job Number : 2025 MNGMT FELLOW COW

Department : City Manager's Office

Opening Date : 01 / 06 / 2025

Closing Date : 2 / 19 / 2025 11 : 59 PM Central

Bargaining Unit : NONE

The City of Wichita is NOT an E-Verify Employer.

Distinguishing Features of Work

The City of Wichita Bryce Mumford Management Fellowship provides recent graduates an unparalleled experience, allowing them to work closely with the City Manager and Assistant City Manager, oversee their own projects and be immersed in every area of the organization including attendance at department director meetings and City Council meetings.

Why Wichita ? Wichita, the heart of the Midwest, offers a unique blend of urban amenities and a welcoming community. With a thriving economy, a low cost of living, and a commitment to sustainability, Wichita provides an ideal backdrop for professionals seeking a fulfilling career in public service. T o learn more about the Bryce Mumford Management Fellowship, please visit

Application Deadline : February 19, 2025 : The program is for 12-months beginning in June or July each year. There are two (2) fellowships available. Candidates will be notified by email if they will be invited to interview for the position.

Compensation and Benefits

• Annual salary of $43,680.00
• Benefit package includes Health / Dental Insurance and paid attendance at Conferences and select trainings.

Bargaining Unit : No Union Representation

Examples of Work Performed

City of Wichita Operating Budget

Requirements of Work

ALL APPLICATIONS MUST INCLUDE :

Offers of employment are contingent upon passing a pre-employment physical, which includes drug screening, and upon satisfactory evaluation of a criminal record check.

Required Experience and Training

Management Case Study Assessment Instructions : In no more than 900 words (about three (3) double-spaced pages), develop an analytical and inclusive approach that recognizes the explosive political climate. Be sure to proofread and eliminate or correct any special characters that may be generated when you paste in your assignment.

NOTICE : This is a professional assessment case study; it is an assessment of your professional management ideas not an academic paper, and may not be reviewed by a professor, writing center, peer or other individual or group. No outside resources may be used or consulted.

Management Case Study

Transit was a long-time responsibility of the local government. The jurisdiction of some 100,000 residents was free-standing and full-service and was located about an hour from a metro area. The jurisdiction owned and operated the bare bones transit system. Financially, it was losing money consistently. Recently, a newly elected member of the governing body had taken office, pledging to the voters that she would run a tight ship and that all "sacred cows" would be scrutinized in an effort to save tax dollars. She replaced a member of the governing body who had supported transit, and now a bare majority, including the chair, was known as fiscally conservative even though the chair could go either way (the chair is a voting member of the governing body). At budget time, the new member requested detailed information about the transit operation. The staff gave her a lot of information, but she clearly was most interested in whether the transit operation was making or losing money. It was losing money. No doubt. She asked whether it was appropriate for the City to be running transit when there were potential private providers. "We could be using this money to fund a fleet of taxis at half the cost," she claimed during a study session. There were nods of approval from a group attending the study session as observers. The issue began to attract a lot of attention, including letters to the editor and the threat of a packed house during the budget hearing. People were split on the issue, but the most active citizens were those who favored the status quo. The challenge was that too many of the transit users could not afford the true cost of their transportation. Under the present arrangement, the jurisdiction had no choice but to subsidize the financial losses. Further, slowly but surely there was a steady influx of new residents, taking service industry jobs, who were dependent on public transit. There was no foreseeable end to the financial loses given the economic profile of the transit users. The chief administrative officer presented a staff report that examined two options : The first would seek a contract with a private provider. He did not include the taxi option believing that the majority of the governing body would not likely favor it. The second option was to sell the transit operation outright. Critics of the proposals contended that it was unfair to show this kind of "callous disregard" for those least able to come to their own defense. "What will happen to these people? They will not be able to afford the cost of transit." Financial facts could not be dismissed, and most voters were not in a sympathetic mood. A further concern was with what would happen to the transit employees. Considered public employees, they had benefits that would not be matched if transit was privatized in some fashion. Their spokesperson, a respected member of the clergy, pointed out that "some are long-time, dedicated public employees. Don't these employees deserve to be treated better?" An editorial in the newspaper criticized the local government for failing to protect tax dollars. "The voters have spoken!" was the headline to the editorial. A few days later, a racially diverse coalition of respected clergy responded with a strong letter raising an equity issue and argued that the governing body's decision would speak loudly to traditionally underrepresented community members. When the transit budget came up for review and public comment, the room was packed. There were placards in the back of the room blasting the governing body. There also was a grim-faced group of citizens who had previously accused the jurisdiction of wasting money. Everyone knew it was going to be a tough evening. At the end of the meeting, it was clear that no decision would be made. The council was divided, citizens were divided, and the staff was exasperated. A majority of the governing body agreed that a "cooling off period" was needed. They would revisit the issue in two months, which still would give plenty of time to approve the budget. There were groans from all parties except several members of the governing body who were glad for the breathing room. To his credit, the chair announced "We are going to use this period to revisit the issue. We will try to develop a proposal during this time that is the result of an analytical and yet inclusive approach. And, if we need more than the six weeks, so be it. This issue is not going to go away."

Applicants have rights under Federal Employment Laws. Please find more information under the following links :

Limited positions are not eligible for benefits.

I applied through ICMA in December 2024 :

The following verifies my graduate school level :

If you are a current graduate student please provide your anticipated graduation date and field below

To be considered for the position you must submit : 1. Cover letter2. Resume3. Undergraduate and graduate transcripts4. Three (3) references with daytime phone and email contact5. Case Study AssignmentI have submitted and attached all of these to my application.

I am legally authorized to work in the United States without sponsorship.

Required Question

Salary : $43,680