We “Defer” To The Alderman To Know What Is Best
I just got off the phone with Alderman Fred Wessels, Chairman of the busy Housing, Urban Development and Zoning Committee (aka HUDZ). We were discussing a bill that will come before his committee next week on the Planned Unit Development on the site of the former St. Aloysius.
I commented how other aldermen just allow an alderman to do whatever they please. He rephrased it as “we defer” to the Alderman because they know their ward and neighborhood best.
This deferment practice, otherwise known as aldermanic courtesy, is destructive to the future of St. Louis. On paper is might sound good but what it really does is divide our city into 28 smaller villages. This is much like St. Louis county with all its municipalities competing with each other for a fixed tax base and no coordination to creating a unified development plan.
We need our legislative representatives to question, probe, and challenge each other in the interest of making sure development decisions are in the best interests of the city, not just that particular ward on that particular day.
By deferring to the wishes of a single alderman the other 27 aldermen are negligent in their duties to protect the interests of the constituents that elected them. I expect the legislative body of this city to look out for the city, not curtail to the wishes of one person.
We need elected officials that can look out for the interests of the city as a whole and at times that might mean not deferring to an alderman. They deferred to former Ald. Bauer when he removed the 24th Ward from the Preservation Review process and subsequently angered the residents they removed him from office and elected someone to reinstate the Preservation Review process in their ward. Had the aldermen not deferred to Bauer but instead told him, through not voting for the legislation, that the process was good and it protected the interests not just of the ward but adjacent wards in the city as a whole. But they didn’t.
In my view any alderman that votes to approve legislation that directly or indirectly leads to the unnecessary destruction of St. Aloysius would be just as guilty as Alderman Vollmer.
Wessels’ HUDZ Committee meets next at 10am on Wednesday January 18, 2006.
– Steve
A group of us should get together to run for alderman in various wards. We can all support each other while running, and if we somehow got elected, we can work together to not use aldermanic courtesy. I can dream, can’t I? If you personally choose to run again, I’ll help with your campaign.
And aldermen wonder why there are so many recall attempts.
I agree that “aldermanic courtesy” is a vesige of the past that needs to go away. Unfortunately, it’s really hard to change a political mindset that has served many wards well over many decades. To use a well-worn analogy, it’s a lot like eating an elephant, it needs to happen one bite at a time.
Going back to my experiences in Denver, three other things that seem (really?) different here are the role political parties play here (in Denver, council races are nominally non-partisan), the fascination with recalls (as a crude tool – just wait until the next election and vote the bums out then) and the total number of wards and alderman (the number we have today probably made sense back when St. Louis had three times as many residents).
Perhaps the best next/first step is cutting the number of wards in half (or two thirds), thus making each alderman “responsible for” a larger and likely more-diverse chunk of the City . . .
[REPLY – Here is the problem I have with reducing the number of wards: First is if they continue ‘aldermanic courtesy’ it doesn’t matter if we have 14, 28 or 100 the result will be the same. With fewer wards you’ll get even more power and money making it harder for people like me to run a credible campaign.
But you are right about parties. I’ve said numerous times in the last year that we need to make all city elected positions non-partisan. Locally such a designation is meaningless. – SLP]
Jim notes:
“Unfortunately, it’s really hard to change a political mindset that has served many wards well over many decades.”
Jim, what do you mean by, “…served many wards well…”?
Steve notes:
“But you are right about parties. I’ve said numerous times in the last year that we need to make all city elected positions non-partisan. Locally such a designation is meaningless.”
Totally agree with Steve, but try telling that to a member of the city political establishment. Or try supporting a non-democrat for public office.
That’s the express route to becoming persona non grata in STL City, especially when there’s a democrat in the race (which is every time).
“Aldermanic courtesy”, democratic machine politics, “dispersal of authority” in city government, these are all things benefitting whom?
Ask yourself these questions the next time someone holding him or herself out as a “progressive” is part of the above system.
Funny that Bauer took such a beating in the press for all of his stances on development in Ward 24 when 27 other clowns were letting him get away with it, and no one is making fun of them. (Shrewsbury notably stood up against Bauer in the end, but the others ducked-and-covered or outright supported Ol’ Tom.)
I wonder how many aldermen read this blog??
If they do, I bet their thinking, “thank GOD this guy wasn’t elected!“.
And if he was, they’d probably be calling for his recall right now!
Being a newcomer, I’m only assuming the aldermen served their wards well, otherwise there’d be a whole lot more pressure to change the status quo. I’m guessing that the local special interests are being satisfied, either through patronage jobs, redevelopment assistance, getting the local steets swept, plowed or paved, getting the trash picked up, street lights put in, getting more 4-way stops installed – all the “little” stuff that gets to be the big stuff to way too many residents, but in reality the vocal and/or involved minority that care and/or believe that the City can and will “do” something for them. (Do I sound cynical, or what?!) My experience is that the majority of the citizenry are totally disconnected, clueless or afraid of local government.
I’ve been able to see enough to know that aldermanic courtesy is prevalent in St. Louis, and to know that while it has a place in any local government, it can’t be the only answer. My thought on having only 12-15 aldermen is that a) they can be paid well enough to both attract “good” people and to have staff to support them, and b) by representing more than just one neighborhood, their view of the city would have to become less local and more “global”.
The balkanization of St. Louis County is the antithesis of delivering good government. 500,000 people don’t need 80 mayors, 60 police chiefs, 40 fire chiefs and 80 public works departments. They’d be better off with dozen strong mayors and 4 or 5 strong police and fire chiefs (and departments). St. Louis city does a better job on the departmental side – they (we) just need to do better on the policy side.
What’s the point of a legislative body at all if the aldermen refuse to vote responsibly?
A modest proposal: Why not name 28 mayors of 28 mini-St. Louises.
If the pie’s getting smaller anyway, let’s just carve it up for each one to have their crumbs.
I believe the operatitve words in Jim’s post are
“served many wards well over many decades”
“Over many decades”…hmmm? Jim, yeah, you’re obviously a newcomer.
The last few years have been “berry, berry good” for St. Louis.
But the five decades previous were a disaster.
During those years, the city lost about 500,000 in population. And you can bet “aldermanic courtesy” was in full force.
During those times:
“local special interests are being satisfied, either through patronage jobs, redevelopment assistance, getting the local steets swept, plowed or paved, getting the trash picked up, street lights put in, getting more 4-way stops installed – all the “little” stuff that gets to be the big stuff to way too many residents, but in reality the vocal and/or involved minority that care and/or believe that the City can and will “do” something for them.”
So the politicians and their crony parochial interests were served, but what about the rest of us?
I think Margie sums it up best-let’s just dissolve St. Louis city and elect 28 mini-mayors.
Folks haven’t talked about it much, but really St. Louis County is just a macrocosm of the “fractured by design” structure of St. Louis city.
When thinking of aldermanic courtesy, think, “Remember the Century”; and, don’t forget to ask yourself which supposed “progressive” St. Louis leaders are part of the system, remaining silent when questionable practices take place in individual wards.
Bottom line, the people voted and the majority rules. If the majority choose to maintain the status quo, then they’ll get the same government they’ve always had, good, bad or mediocre.
Would I like to see change? Sure! As for breaking the city up into 28 mini cities – how would that be a change or an improvement? That’s essentially what’s happening now! In a city as large and diverse as St. Louis, not all resources can or should be spread equally among all wards. There need to be trade-offs, but there needs to be balance, as well. That’s where electing true diplomats is important, alderman who look beyond the boundaries of their wards toward the greater good of the city, not just party hacks who’ve been loyal foot soldiers for several decades.
My guess is the problem lies not so much in the structure of government as in its culture. Aldermanic courtesy is not written into the charter, it evolved over time. If voters aren’t given a true choice, the same types of ward-centric politicians will get elected over and over. As others have pointed out, the only way to change things is to give the voters viable options. This will take a real effort to recruit people like Steve to run, and if enough candidates can be found in enough wards to actually create enough momentum and enough of a voting bloc to change things, change can and will likely happen. If not, even the best-intentioned newbie, non-party-line guy or gal will be a lone voice getting some occassional press, but not seeing any real change occur. You gotta change the culture, and the only way that will happen is at the polls. It’s democracy, for better or worse . . . .