Dissenting Opinion By
Senior Judge KELLEY.I respectfully dissent.
Section 410(b) of the Optional Third Class City Charter Law (Law)1 provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he council may provide for the manner of appointment of a city solicitor ...” Pursuant to this provision, the City Council enacted Ordinance 2348, which vests the City Council with the sole and exclusive authority to appoint, or remove, the City Solicitor and the Assistant City Solicitor. In this appeal, the Majority affirms the trial court’s order based upon the trial court’s opinion which states, inter alia, that the provisions of Section 410(b) are “clear and unambiguous” and that the City Council took “a valid legislative action” in doing so. See Trial Court Opinion at 8-9. I strongly disagree with these notions.
It is well settled that the provisions of the Law vest a local government with substantial authority to regulate its own affairs. Malloy v. Pfuhl, 116 Pa.Cmwlth. 461, 542 A.2d 202 (Pa.Cmwlth.), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 520 Pa. 592, 551 A.2d 218 (1988). It is intended to confer the greatest power of local self-government, and any specific enumeration of that power is not construed to limit the general' description of power in the Law. Id. However, it does not permit the local government to adopt ordinances which contravene the enabling act itself. Id. So long as the council of the local government acts within its aüthority under the Law, and does not violate any laws of the Commonwealth, its actions or policies will not be disturbed by the judiciary. Id.
Section 411 of the Law states that “[t]he executive power of the city shall be exercised by the mayor.” 53 P.S. § 41411. To this end, Section 412 of the Law provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he mayor shall *569enforce the charter and ordinance of the city and all general laws applicable thereto ... ”, and that “[h]e shall supervise all of the departments of city government ...” 53 P.S. § 41412. In addition, Section 415 of the Law provides, in pertinent part, that “[e]ach department shall be headed by a director who shall be appointed by the mayor with the advice and consent of the council ... ”, and that “[t]he mayor may, in his discretion, remove any department head after notice and an opportunity to be heard ...” 53 P.S. § 41415(c), (d). Indeed, it has been long recognized that the power of appointment is intrinsically and historically an executive function. See, e.g., Daly v. Hemphill, 411 Pa. 263, 191 A.2d 835 (1963).
In Moore v. Reed, 126 Pa.Cmwlth. 283, 559 A.2d 602 (Pa.Cmwlth.1989), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 527 Pa. 657, 593 A.2d 428 (1991), the Mayor of the City of Harrisburg issued a park permit to a baseball club for the use of a city-owned stadium. The Harrisburg City Council initiated an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, alleging that the Mayor had no authority to issue the permit. The City Council sought a declaration that the permit was, in actuality, a contract, and that the Mayor had no authority to negotiate contracts on behalf of the City without the authority or approval of the City Council. The trial court granted the Mayor’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding that, pursuant to the Law, the Mayor was vested with the authority to negotiate, enter into negotiations, sign, modify, and cancel contracts on behalf of the City.
On appeal, in reversing the trial court’s grant of judgment on the pleadings, this Court stated the following, in pertinent part:
Harrisburg is a Third Class City under the Third Class City Code.1-2-1 It adopted Plan A of the [Law], Under this plan, section 407 of the Law, 53 P.S. § 41407, states, “[T]he legislative power of the city shall be exercised by the city council, except as may be otherwise provided by general law.” Section 411 of the Law, 53 P.S. § 41411 provides, “The executive power of the city shall be exercised by the mayor”, and section 413(c) of the Law, 53 P.S. § 41413(c), provides that “[a]ll bonds, notes, contracts and written obligations of the city shall be executed on its behalf by the mayor and the controller.”
A fair reading of the [Law] provides for a separation of power between the legislature and executive functions. This is inherent in our form of government and one branch cannot usurp the functions of the other, unless otherwise expressly provided. Bailey v. Waters, 308 Pa. 309, 162 A. 819 (1932). The issue, therefore, is whether the act of the Mayor was an administrative act or legislative act.
The authority to negotiate a valid and binding contract for a municipality is vested in the City Council. It is a legislative function. Without the assent of City Council, the municipality is not bound. Waymart Water Co. v. Waymart, 4 Pa.Super. 211 (1897).
Here, while the document may have been described as a “Park Permit”, in actuality it was a contract. It was more than a mere license to do some act. A reading of it shows a series of rights and obligations on the part of the parties which is the essence of a contract. There is nothing to indicate that it was intended in the ordinance that this function of negotiating a contract was delegated to the Mayor. In Symon v. Tom-*570Ijanovic, [454 A.2d 234 (Pa.Cmwlth.1983) ], we held that the term “execute” means to discharge the ministerial duties relating to contracts and does not embrace negotiations.
Moore, 559 A.2d at 603-604.
In the instant case, to my mind, the City Council has likewise infringed upon the executive powers possessed by the Mayor under the Law by enacting Ordinance 2348, which vests City Council with the sole and exclusive authority to appoint, or remove, the City Solicitor and the Assistant City Solicitor.3 Although Section 410(b) of the Law provides that “[t]he council may provide for the manner of appointment of a city solicitor ... ”, I do not believe that it confers upon the City Council the authority to completely exclude the executive from his proper role in the appointment process.4
Rather, I believe that Section 410(b) confers upon the City Council the authority to enact an ordinance which properly respects the authority of the executive explicitly conferred under the Law, and which involves the Mayor in the appointment process.5,6 Because Ordinance 2348 vests the City Council with the sole and exclusive authority to appoint, or remove, the City Solicitor and the Assistant City Solicitor, and completely divests the Mayor of his executive powers in the appointment process, I believe that the ordinance is in violation of the relevant provisions of the Law.
*571Accordingly, unlike the majority, I would reverse the order of the trial court.
. Act of July 15, 1957, P.L. 901, as amended, 53 P.S. § 41410(b).
. Act of June 23, 1931, P.L. 932, as amended, 53 P.S. §§ 35101-39701.
. See, e.g., Malloy, 542 A.2d at 204 ("[I]t is beyond argument that Council must respect the separation of executive and legislative authority ... ”).
. Contrast the permissive language of Section 410(b) with the mandatory language of Section 410(a) which states, in pertinent part, that "[t]he council shall appoint a city clerk ...” 53 P.S. § 41410(a) (emphasis added).
. See, e.g., Art. XIII, § 1 of the First Class City Code, Act of June 25, 1919, P.L. 581, as amended, 53 P.S. § 12461 ("[Tjhere shall be a department of law of which the city solicitor shall be the head. He shall be appointed by the mayor, by and with the advice and consent of the council ...”); Art. XIV, § 6 of the Second Class City Code, Act of March 7, 1901, P.L. 20, as amended, 53 P.S. § 22226 ("[T]he appointments hereafter to be made of the heads of all executive department of said city, now by law authorized to be made of the heads of all executive departments of said city, now by law authorized to be made by the mayor thereof, shall be subject to the approval of said council, to be evidenced by resolution, which shall receive the affirmative votes of a majority of all the members thereof ... ”).
. In the opinion filed in support of its order, the trial court states, in pertinent part:
[Wjhile it is true that City Council, in vesting itself the authority to appoint the solicitor, deviated from the customary practice of personnel appointments under the Mayor-Council Plan A, we find it a valid legislative action under the [Law]. We also cannot lose sight of the fact that unless a third-class city chooses to operate under the [Law], a council has the unquestionable right to appoint the city solicitor [under the Third Class City Code].
Trial Court Opinion at 9 (footnote omitted).
It is true that Section 1601 of the Third Class City Code vests the city council with the exclusive authority to appoint a city solicitor. Indeed, Section 1601 provides, in pertinent part, that "[t]he council of each city shall ... appoint a city solicitor ...” 53 P.S. § 36601.
However, Section 1002 of the Third Class City Code states that “[t]he legislative power of every city shall be vested in a council composed of the mayor and four councilmen ...”, and Section 1003 states, in pertinent part, that "[t]he mayor shall be the president of the council, and a member thereof, and shall have the same rights and duties, including the introduction of bills and the making of motions, as pertain to councilmen.” 53 P.S. §§ 36002, 36003. Thus, unlike the Law, the Third Class City Code does not make such an explicit distinction between the powers conferred upon the executive and legislative departments. Moreover, the foregoing provisions of the Third Class City Code explicitly provide the executive with a role in the appointment process.