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
