Cincinnati City Council members reacted coolly Monday night to a proposal that would not only change how they are elected, but also would cut their salaries and give more power to the mayor.

Ending nearly five months' of work, a panel created by Mayor Charlie Luken and Vice Mayor Alicia Reece to review methods for restructuring how local government operates outlined its recommendations.

The panel, known as the Cincinnati Electoral Reform Commission, is proposing to replace the citywide at-large elections that have been used in Council races for almost a half-century with district contests.

Under the plan, City Council still would consist of nine members, but they all would be elected by districts, with each area containing an average of about 36,000 residents. Because Council members would represent fewer people and the position revert to its historic role as a part-time job, the salary would be cut from its current level, which is about $57,150 annually.

Further, the mayor would be given broader executive authority, allowing that person to hire and fire the city manager, department heads, directors, and the police and fire chiefs unilaterally, without the consent of City Council. Additionally, the mayor would no longer preside over City Council or appoint committee chairmanships, allowing the group to organize itself.

Moreover, the mayor would assume control of the city's daily operations, with the city manager's position morphing into a chief administrative officer who would provide technical expertise.

Panel members said the proposal would make Council's members more accountable to the public, provide a clearer separation of powers between the mayor and City Council, and force collaboration between the mayor and a Council majority to pass any legislation. "The folks who elect the mayor will understand who is responsible for the city and delivery of city services," said Don Mooney, the panel's chairman.

"This is a model that separates powers," Mooney added. "We want Council to function independently of the mayor's office."

By making the mayor the clear boss of the city manager, reform panel members contend, Cincinnati's government would be transformed from the current hybrid mayor-city manager-Council system to one in which the mayor would set the overall agenda, similar to other large cities like New York and Chicago.

Although the mayor now takes the lead in hiring or firing the city manager, the need for Council consent produces divided loyalties and fractured authority that complicates executive decision-making at City Hall and undermines overall governmental effectiveness, some panel members said.

Setting a clear course for the city is  "very hard to do when you have 10 quarterbacks, along with the city manager," Mooney said.

Any change in City Hall's structure would require voter approval of one or more charter amendments.

But it takes the vote of at least six Council members or a citizen-led petition drive to put a charter amendment on the ballot.

"I fully support the proposals that have been transmitted to Council," Luken said. "I just don't know if there's the energy in that room to go out and carry that change to the public.

"A charter change is a very big thing," the mayor added. "It's very easy to defeat one, and very difficult to get it passed."

The proposal would create five districts with black majorities -- ranging from 54 percent to 66 percent -- and four districts with whites making up 56 percent to 90 percent of the population.

Under the current at-large system, City Council has five white and four black members.

The nine districts' boundaries in the proposal reflect the legal requirement that the districts include roughly comparable populations and the election panel's desire to not split individual neighborhoods between districts.

At least three Council members -- John Cranley, Pat DeWine and David Pepper -- liked portions of the proposal.

"We ought to give voters the chance to have the ultimate say-so," DeWine said.

"I strongly believe that we need to give the mayor more power," Cranley said.

Most Council members, however, wanted more review before taking a stance or deciding how to proceed.

In fact, even the panel recommending the changes didn't agree on all of them. It voted 7-6 on the portion involving district elections.

Some panel members, including diehard Charterites, prefer a return to a proportional representation system that was used to elect City Council for 32 years, prior to adoption of the current system in 1957.

The previous system, known as PR, had voters rank candidates in order of preference and ensured all political groups were represented in proportion to their strength in the electorate. Voters rejected a return to the PR system in 1988 and 1991.

PR supporters said the system is more equitable, and avoids possible pitfalls of district elections.

"It would create a division and foster the divisiveness we're trying to avoid," said panel member Chris Bortz. "We're trying to come together as a city."