Are our Elected Officials Competent?
First, in the realm of full disclosure, I spent 5 years as an elected member of a quasi-governmental transit agency, first being appointed to fill a vacancy, then running and being elected to a four-year term.
When our country was founded, the framers of the constitution did not envision professional politicians. Elected officials were expected to serve limited terms for little or no compensation, taking a leave from their farms or mercantile operations to do so. Over the last 230 years, things have changed, sometimes substantially, and there no longer is only one way of having a legislative body. Most traditional bodies continue to deal with a broad range of issues, everything from finances and taxes to land use and urban design to criminalizing texting while driving and having saggy pants. We’ve also seen the rise of many specialized districts and boards, covering everything from fire protection and water and sewers to schools, transit and “improvement” districts.
In pretty much every case, there are few, if any requirements for running or being appointed to a position, other than a minimum age, residency requirements and/or being a citizen. There rarely, if ever, is any sort of requirement that you be educated in, or even actually understand, what you’ll be voting on and rejecting or approving. A farmer can approve a multi-million dollar highway bond package and a teacher can approve a union contract or the purchase of 3,000 tires for a transit agency.
Our tradition is to elect generalists to office, and our pay structure is all over the map. In many positions, compensation can best be defined as “token” – you either have to be retired or comfortable in your “real” job (and able to take time off) to be able to serve. Working stiffs need not apply, especially if your boss (or spouse) won’t give you the time off to serve. A few bodies do pay “living wages” to the people elected to serve on them. St. Louis’ Board of Alderman is in kind of a gray area – it pays well enough for a part-time job, but not enough for it to be a full-time one for many folks.
In a roundabout way, this gets us back to the original question, especially when it comes to our Board of Aldermen. It’s very much a traditional body, and its makeup of 27 members should guarantee enough diversity in expertise (the Law of Large Numbers) to be able to cover almost any topic. Unfortunately, this is counteracted by both the tradition of Aldermanic courtesy, where each ward acts very autonomously, and the tradition that the Democratic party selects candidates more for their loyalty and hard than for their expertise.
Bottom line, there is no consistent answer. We have good people serving for very little money and we have mediocre, or worse, people showing up just to collect a paycheck and enjoy having the power. We have bodies that work well together, building on their individual members’ strengths and hiring and listening to good professional staff. We have bodies that are essentially dysfunctional and either ineffective or counterproductive. And we have bodies that can fit either description, depending on who won in the last election! It’s something nobody can legislate, but it is something we can all impact, by supporting the best candidates AND by staying involved and vocal after the election is over . . .
– Jim Zavist
Which two members of the 29 member St. Louis Board of Aldermen are excluded by your description of a “27 members” board?
It’s funny how a post about incompetent government makes an incorrect statement describing government. I thought everyone knew St. Louis had 28 aldermen, or 29, depending on how you count.
If a person can’t say the title of this blog post three times fast without slurring “are our,” they are clearly competent, since then, they are clearly natives.
Ease up… a simple typo is exactly that. Anyway who really believes that the City has as many as 27 “representatives”?
True. 27. 24. 20. 17 . . . it’s too damn many. By and large I think that our elected officials are competent, but they lack checks and balances and competent feedback from their constituents. Look, I think aldermen should listen to their constituents, but they hear more often than not from a small group of loud, not particularly competent, voters who think their alderman works for one person – them.
I for one would love to know what my alderman does all day. As a resident of the 24th ward since before Waterhouse was even elected, I haven’t heard a peep from him beyond the barrage of Vote for Me cards around election time. I went to the 24th ward website and saw that it barely got off the ground last April (wow: http://www.24thward.org/).
It says the first step to getting involved is to come to their meetings. Well what if I work every Wednesday night? Then what? I can’t get involved? That’s it? And why can’t I find an actual email address for the alderman? My only choice is the contact form (http://stlcin.missouri.org/index/contactald.cfm?Ward=24) on the BOA’s website and who knows how and when each alderman recieves that info.
I think I’m most frustrated with accessibility. We elect these folks for a reason. They need to realize that communication with their constituents is incredibly important. Get with the 21st century. The aldermen on Twitter are great. You can tell they aren’t afraid of letting folks in the region know where they stand on issues and what they do all day. They work hard, and it shows.
This is not the time to complain about our current elected officials. This is the time to select the next generation.
I am a fairly new resident to the city and attended my first Aldermanic committee hearing yesterday (regarding a smoking ban in St. Louis). I was completely appalled by the circus I witnessed. As a citizen and strong supporter of a comprehensive smoke-free policy in St. Louis, I testified in front of the Health and Human Services committee expressing my opinion. I also spoke from the viewpoint of a tobacco control researcher. Alderman Conway (8th Ward), who opposes this bill, was utterly disrespectful in his questioning after I gave my testimony. It is one thing to disagree, but quite another to be argumentative and belittling to a constituent expressing her opinion about a matter before a committee of her local governing body. Not only that, but the chair of the committee, Alderman Carter (27th Ward), failed to keep any semblance of order and control over the proceedings. I was shocked to experience the chaos that was this committee hearing.
That said, Jim Z’s observations are spot-on.
Our hope is that representative government works. Generally, it does.
Well Sarah, join the club. I testified today regarding the science of second hand smoke and then on the economics of a ban. I pointed out The Who study and the UCLA studies both of which show no correlation to illness. The were not kind to me to say the least. Some on your side and some are on my side.
For what its worth – running for and being elected are not easy task. I’ve been involved in campaigns before and the best day of a campaign is the day after it election win or lose.
A few months ago, I could think of nothing more I wanted to do than to serve the people of the 23rd ward by being their alderwoman. I had a lot of support from friends and colleagues and an equal number of colleagues in public health and public service who questioned my foray into public office. I was told that people like me didn’t run because I was a big thinker, not a politician, and I had a public health background. I wanted to bring a sense of the common good and justice–not just public administration–to the Board of Alderman. I knew I was up against a tough crowd (a 7-person field with some old political hardballs) and graciously took up the challenge.
When it came time for me to answer a multitude of candidate questionnaires, I didn’t just give my opinion. I turned to the experts in the fields of public administration, law, social services, public works, urban design & planning, and accounting/budget. I was unwilling to give some blase, “political” answer if I had the luxury of turning to a specialist to help formulate a meaningful and reasonable answer that I could deliver on once elected.
I too am tired of our elected officials being generalists and unwilling to learn more about that which they do not understand. Being on the steering committee for Smoke Free St Louis has taught me much about the lack of public health and even social services background held by our elected officials. Aldermanic courtesy has run it’s course and it’s time for true change with measurable, discernible and meaningful outcomes.
That being said, I’m glad I ran but I’m also glad I lost. It would have been nice to have a significant pay raise (full time work in social services historically pays poorly) but that wouldn’t have been enough for me. It’s hard to keep up the good fight and now, 4 months after defeat, I realize my talents are better spent elsewhere. I’m not part of the good ol boys club. I’m unwilling to sacrifice the common good to advance my political career or to pay homage to a dying political machine. I may sound self-righteous and for that I apologize.
I think there are some good things happening at City Hall but there is also a lot that still needs to transpire–a comprehensive smoke-free policy, voter education, capital improvement for struggling neighborhoods, increased police presence, increased funding for prevention interventions (lead paint, substance abuse/mental health, prenatal care, homelessness), education transformation, walkability and workability of neighborhoods, etc. As Jim and others pointed out, having more elected officials does not guarantee better policy-making–everyone is out for their piece of the pie instead of finding solutions to make our City more livable, enjoyable, profitable in a cohesive, deliberate way.
Keep holding our elected officials’ feet to the fire. They do work for “us” but let’s try to see “us” as the whole City (if not MSA) instead of just the block on which we live.