How To Save the City Up to $125K Every Two Years!
Yes, with my sure fire plan we can save city taxpayers roughly $125,000 every two years. How? Simple, switch to non-partisan elections for local offices and eliminate the March primary. I spoke with a Deputy Director of the St. Louis Board of Elections, Gary Stoff, who indicated the upcoming March primary will cost the taxpayers between $100,000 to $125,000.
With Republicans, Libertarians and Greens not even able to fill all their ward committee positions the idea of having a partisan primary election before a general election is silly. We all know the real election in St. Louis is the Democratic primary in March every two years. Yet we also have to have a general election in April for school board seats and that rare example of a challenger from another party. I think we’ve only seen independent candidates in special elections when an alderman is recalled.
So, with nearly everyone as Democrats it is really pointless to waste the time and money on a primary and general election every two years. Plus, with only a single general election in the Spring every two years we could possibly get more voters to the polls rather than have to push for them to show up in March and again in April for the school board elections.
Locally the democratic ward committees seem to focus much of their attention on races such as state house, state senate and bigger races such as statewide offices, congress and president. Switching our local elections to non-partisan, such as most of those in our region, would not negate these groups from supporting Democratic candidates for state and national offices.
We need this to happen as well as fewer Wards and the professionalization of the Alderman position. It is entirely too low of pay and does not have any professional qualifications whereas the position can have a big impact in the ward, for good or for the bad. Really, why be a nanny for the bureaucracy for a small ~30k? Do you expect the Aldermen to fight for Urban Design or “radical” zoning at such a low pay?
Some on the right argue that public service is for the mediocre; real entrepreneurs generally go into the private sector due to high returns. This assumes human nature is the pursuit of profit and market success. While I generally disagree, a certain truth can be seen in our system. Why put ones career on the line for “radical” reforms when they are underpaid and can have basically a secured job by only doing citizen service? By keeping their contributors pleased, when they do retire they can get some sweet consulting job in private sector. This is the Iron Triangle Theory. There are the exceptions to this like those who strive for the actual public good and the advancement of the City or the Region, yet the system allows for a lot of mediocrity. The position needs professional requirements and a much higher wage.
Really, don’t expect reform to happen rapidly some local minority leaders believe that this will dilute their political influence and representation. Certain old timers would have to leave office or change their mind for reform and regional governance to take hold.
We don’t even have home rule. Sadly St. Louis is many decades behind.
But what if… you know… a strong republican ran for office and all of the infighting amoung the dems gave the city a …. oh I can’t bear to say it… Repblican Mayor???
Oh think of the children…
The concept sounds great to me, but where would this leave the established Democratic poltical structure?!
Well if Gambaro had spine as Mr. Herod did, then well maybe we could get a precedent going. I am not a fan of the “Jesus Camp GOP” however some views of the Danforth old school Republicans do work. Trigger happy Goldwater might have been anti-New Deal and bombed Vietnam along with most of the pinkos, but he understood limited government and the separation of church and state.
In any event, getting a multiparty system would bring about big change.
Yet, we all need to remember that even in the Liberal St. Louis City the political culture is traditionalistic. Democrat or GOP, most of the people in power are about the status quo regardless of the signs of failure.
The future is citizen leaders like you.
Professional qualifications for an elected position sounds great…in theory. Except for the fact that this country was built on people willing to step up to the plate when they saw a need and thought they could do things differently. Different thought set, different courses of action, different backgrounds…that is what a democracy consist of. Setting standards….well how fast do you think this country can go down hill?
And just who is going to set these qualifications?
Steve, the city has experience in nonprimary nonpartisan elections. It’s the longest run of Groundhog Day in the country, the school board. KC has nonpartisan mayor & council elections, primary and then general election run-off. You get on the ballot by collecting signatures, which require verification by election board, which if applied here would mean additional staff for election board, end up costing more than present system. Let’s also factor in that our board of aldermen is also our county legislative branch and no county commission/council in Missouri is elected by nonpartisan ballot.
The election structure we have is not to blame for the lack of candidates by other than the Democratic Party. That blame lies clearly on the other parties failure to get their act together or give a rats behind about local government. As for the lack of independent candidates, I chalk that up to people being too lazy to collect the signatures. Most voters would agree, I think, that these are not valid reasons to change the system.
Doug, please provide three examples of state law or municipal charter provision, anywhere in the 50 states, establishing professional qualifications for elected office to any legislative body- city council, county council, state. 30k + health insurance + pension would not be viewed as a bad deal by a large number of St. Louisans. Please name three City aldermen to leave office and get sweet consulting jobs in the private sector.
Finally, Doug, St. Louis was the first city in the U.S. to be organized under a home rule charter. What we do not have is a county home rule charter, the same flaw as 111 of Missouri’s 114 counties. Sadly, a county charter was not the purpose of the so-called home rule constitutional amendment or the 2004 charter amendments.
JeffCo has been circulating petitions for some time now to get their circuit court to appoint a charter-writing commission. Their campaign in no way resembles the ordeal the City went through, a huge waste of time and money that could have been spent on a truly productive effort to examine, evaluate, and propose thoughtful improvements to our local government. The JeffCo movement is quick to point out that it’s not about turning elected offices into appointed offices. One of their problems, I imagine, is the legacy of the debacle in the City. A county charter can look like St. Louis County’s, 2 countywide officials, or St. Charles County’s, 8 countywide officials, or something else, an important point ignored by Citizens for Home Rule.
Franklin County will have a home rule charter issue on the ballot this November, I think. Franklin is looking at having a county exec and council of 9, each to represent 10,000. In both JeffCo & Franklin, the selling points are creating checks and balances, separate executive and legislative branches and, shockingly, increasing the number of elected officials in order to increase representation. Noncharter counties by state law have a presiding commissioner elected countywide, two commissioners elected by district, plus 9 county elected offices, in a few cases more. The commission serves as both executive and legislative branch and the bigger the population, the more that causes problems.
Denver has nonpartisan races for City Council. Yes, you need to collect a certain number of signatures to run, and yes, they need to be verified. A runoff is required only if one candidate does not receive 50% of the votes + one. While collecting signatures were the worst part of running when I ran for the RTD Board (another non-partisan position), the process does serve a valuable purpose. It creates a barrier that eliminates the truly unmotivated, scary or narcicistic potential candidates – you need to be at least superficially acceptable when people answer the door. It levels the playing field, since it makes it harder to buy one’s way onto the ballot – people of limited means (and abundant time) can run. It forces you to meet your potential constituents on the most elemental level, and it may give you a different perspective on what they think is actually important. And it creates a more-open process, apparently unlike the local ward process, where being the “good soldier” counts for more than being a creative (or even eccentric) candidate. The downside is that “stealth” candidates can get on the ballot and get elected. Candidates like more than a few school board members, who have professional credentials and a non-dramatic history, but who turn out to be unable or unwilling to work for the greater good, seeking instead, a more-public platform for a personal agenda. It all gets back to an (and in many cases, not) educated electorate. When people have no clue who they’re voting for, they deserve what they get. Having yet to experience a BoA election in the city, I’m not sure what to expect. Hopefully there will be lively discussion, multiple candidate forums (with some televised), sprited coverage in the print media and continuing discussion in the blogosphere. What I fear (based on what I’ve been reading) is that some secret ward society will stand up one take-it-or-leave-it candidate for folks to rubber stamp (but not in my ward, which isn’t on this cycle) – it’ll be both “interesting” and “ecucational” to watch the process in my new home town . . .
Steve, your reference point to go nonpartisan is area city councils but you are cherry picking the nonpartisan provision and disregarding the two aldermen per ward component. You want a change to nonpartisan but have provided no good reason why voters should go along with you. Change for the sake of change is not a selling point.
The answer to the school board problem is more organized politics, not less. School board candidates are not career public servants. We end up with short-term flash in the pan members, part-timers with no particular schools, students, neighborhoods to look after and be accountable to. Give them turf to be elected from. Give them party labels. Make the local majority political party take some responsibility for public schools.
Jim, what historical, statutory, demographic similarities are there between Denver and St. Louis City? My point is that cut & paste from one geography is often not workable, good intentions but not easily cut & pasted elsewhere. It happens a lot in state legislatures where someone gets a brilliant idea from an NCSL conference or publication, wants to champion it back home, and then a research staffer is the one who has to sit the legislator down and explain how the pieces that made it work in another venue are not here. In our state’s worst experiences, it has happened with initiative petition efforts, sloppy products.
I am not simply talking term limits. I am talking professional qualifications like degree requirements and/or applicable work experience. These would be set by the voters. Other legislatures have such requirements.
This professional vs. citizen representative is a debate. Professional meaning a higher salary and relevant qualifications while citizen generally means less pay, possibly fewer hours, yet more “democratic.”
If we want the Aldermen to be less focused on constituent service and more on development then shouldn’t they have some background studying the various theories?
If they are going to be issuing public monies for private projects then shouldn’t they have every tool available when dealing with the private sector? The private sector is disproportionally equipped when it comes to matters of development as that is their primary function. If we are going to transition the aldermanic position away from constituent service then maybe such requirements, along with wage increases, are appropriate.
Denver & St. Louis are both combined cities and counties and both are heavily Democratic and similar in population. I’m not sure about your geographic concerns – St. Louis is an old river town while Denver is an old mining town. Both towns get rain and snow and sunshine. St. Louis has a much larger African-American population (both number and percentage of population), while Denver is doing better economically and has far fewer blighted and “problem” neighborhoods and properties. I agree, “cut and paste” is not always “the” answer. But to say that St. Louis has a perfect system is a bit disingenuous – there’s no reason why we can’t be looking at potential improvements. Certainly, the state constitutions differ, as does the enabling legislation that underlies each city’s governmental structure. And both cities aren’t any different than pretty much any other urban area when it comes to an “educated” electorate, where you have a core minority of party faithful and political wonks (like us) who actually pay attention and you have a much larger middle who may recognize a name and may remember getting or seeing an ad for a candidate in a major race, but mostly have no real clue what the people they’re voting for stand for! I do take exception to the assumption that a “party” is the best and/or only source for pre-screened, competent candidates, especially in any area where one party dominates. I’m much more interested in voting for a candidate who’s bright, motivated, open to constituent concerns and willing to invest both the time and effort to serve me well than a party label. That includes making most meetings, communicating back to thier constituents and being responsive to constituent concerns. I’ve lived in my ward for a year and a half, and haven’t had much luck in communicating with my alderperson and I have no clue where or when the ward “committee” meets or how to contact them. I don’t expect to have the same access to the Board of Aldermen that I had with Denver’s City Council (where I was on a first-name basis with half its members – that took twenty years of building trust), but I’d like to think that I can expect a response to an emailed question within a few days and showing up for most neighborhood association meetings! The same goes for public outreach – I’ve attended public forums held by Metro and MoDOT, but I’ve yet to see any public outreach from the city on any projects or issues. Fundamentally, I’m suspicious of any governmental entity that wants to operate “in the shadows” – sunshine, while a pain, at times, in the public process goes a long ways in helping our elected representatives do a better job and produce better results on our behalf!
Doug, I would encourage you to seek out a teacher that you respect in local higher education who knows something about the Civil Rights Act of 1965 and ask him or her about your literacy test to run for public office idea.
Jim, Colorado law requires nonpartisan municipal elections. St. Louis government has a lot more in common with Indianapolis-Marion County than Denver. Historically, we have very little in common with Denver. An easy, scholarly yet entertaining work on our history is Lion of the Valley by James Neal Primm. Generally, visitors and migrants from large cities are amazed by our biggest small town in America charm, where every day people are on a first name basis with elected officials. I don’t know why you are having a different experience. Have you joined your neighborhood association? In some areas of the City, the neighborhood association does a much better job on local politics, but in a nonpartisan way. They are often the groups that sponsor the candidate and issue forums. In most cases, they meet far more regularly than ward groups.
Howard I am well versed with Jim Crow and the various disenfranchisement tools like grandfather clauses, poll taxes, literacy tests, etc. What do you think they teach in Political Science?
Your argument is that adding professional qualifications will disenfranchise the minority vote. I argue that if someone is going to be making important decisions with public funds as in St. Louis Marketplace, then they should understand Urban Planning and its history. Professional qualifications could eliminate the likelihood of a mistake. The public sector will be ahead of the game without professional experience.
Besides what good are degrees or qualifications. Any data can be interpreted to reflect an opinion. Anytime science, public interest, and private interest converge, there will never be agreement.
Howard – yes, I’ve joined my neighborhood organization – that’s where I’ve seen multiple non-appearances by my alderperson. And don’t get me wrong, I’m not down on the people or the “feel” of St. Louis – we could have located in the county (or worse, in St. Charles County or across the river), but we chose the city (and are very happy here). My only gripes are the apparent lack of transparency in how local government works here (compared to Denver) and the difficulty I’ve had getting responses from one alderperson (which is more a symptom of how one person works, and not of the system in general). Do I expect an established system to bend to fit my expectations? Of course not! But that’s no reason not to question why it is the way it is and to suggest changes that might improve the way our city functions in the 21st century, including the the wisdom and the validity of holding “partisan” elections when one party has such a lock on the process that primaries become the de facto election. While a party vetting process will likely weed out the most unqualified potential candidates, I’m not convinced that the criteria a party (or ward organization) uses to pick the candidate that best represents the party’s interests is always the same criteria that best represents the city’s interests. Patronage and access are powerful tools that enhance a party’s power, but may not always be in the best interest of the city and its taxpayers. A city’s role is not to provide employment, its role is to deliver services as efficiently as possible to its residents and taxpayers. And I do disagree that the political underpinnings between Denver and St. Louis are that much different. Both cities became city-counties in the 19th century and are surrounded and land-locked by unsympathetic suburban cities. In contrast, Indianapolis started merging their city and county functions in the 1970’s and incorporates a much larger geographical area (much like Louisville and Jeffferson County, Ky. are doing now).
Upon further consideration, here’s another observation – yes, the political systems between Denver and St. Louis ARE different. One, Denver’s system is a strong-mayor system, while, St. Louis’s is a weak-mayor system. Two, Denver’s political process is more collaborative while St. Louis’s is more parental. “Parental?”, you ask? Sure, as in “Father knows best”, “Kids are meant to be seen and not heard”, “Do as I say, not as I do”, and my favorite, “Mom always liked you best!” Rules are changeable to fit the situation, and as kids, we have little input into what they are and how they are applied!