An Open Letter To The St. Louis Board of Aldermen
Dear Board of Aldermen:
I appreciate your many years of pubic service, but after about 12 years that service changes to public disservice. In my view, more than half of you have stayed around too long.
Let me explain my thinking.
To run for the Board of Aldermen you need to be 25 years old — born by 1985. Alfred Wessels & Phyllis Young were both sworn into office in the Spring of 1985 (source). They’ve now been in office so long that a person born on the day they were sworn in is now qualified to run for their seats!
Young & Wessels were once the new folks coming in to change City Hall:
“Phyllis Young, the Democratic incumbent, was first elected in 1985 as a reform candidate against the old Webbe-Leisure organization that for decades controlled the ward, which now takes in downtown and neighborhoods just to the south. Her immediate predecessor, former Alderman Sorkis J. Webbe Jr., is serving a prison term on charges of vote fraud and obstruction of justice.” (St. Louis Post-Dispatch March 23, 1989)
Each of you are all nice and have the best of intentions. That said, by running for reelection ever four years you are not allowing a new group of leadership to emerge & grow in this city.
The following of you are up for reelection in March, and frankly, I’d like each and every one on this list to return to the Board of Election Commissioners and withdraw from the race:
- Terry Kennedy (D-18, 1989)
- Stephen Conway (D-8. 1990)
- Craig Schmid (D-20, 1995)
- Lyda Krewson (D-28, 1997)
And one more — Fred Heitert (R-12, 1979) Yes the sole Republican on the Board of Aldermen will have served 32 years at the end of his current term. 32 years! All the above need to step aside to let others be able to participate.
In 2013 the following shouldn’t seek another term:
- Phyllis Young (D-7, 1985)
- Alfred Wessels (D-13, 1985)
- Joseph Roddy (D-17, 1988)
- Freeman Bosley Sr (D-3, 1989)
- Gregory Carter (D-27, 1993)
- April Ford Griffin (D-5, 1997)
- Matt Villa (D-11, 1997)
- Dionne Flowers (D-2, 1999)
- Ken Ortmann (D-9, 1999)
- Jennifer Florida (D-15, 2001)
This is not personal, I believe we’d have less voter apathy and more citizen involvement in the community if people saw a chance for change, an opening to get involved. Have you done good things for the city? Yes. Would you continue doing good things for the city. Probably so. But each of you replaced someone just they replaced the person before them. Is there risk we’d get someone we don’t like as well? Certainly, but we need to take that chance. We must take that risk! So please, let three terms be your limit. Don’t be a house guest that stays too long.
– Steve Patterson
When I moved back to St. Louis after a 3 decade absence, was amazed to see so many of the same names involved in the political scene as when I grew up on the south side……..
I agree except that they have the best intentions. Whenever they give themselves raises and make city employees take furloughs while they, the firemen, and the police officers do not, there is something wrong. When they continue to blow money on painting fire hydrants and installing entry features, there is something wrong. When they can convince the federal government to “donate” stimulus funds to redo four blocks of South Broadway for a special interest while there are no sidewalks/ADA issues in the immediate area [immediately north of the project limits, on the east side of Broadway, there is no sidewalk!] and there is a scrap yard just a few blocks to the north–toward downtown, there are problems. They keep on installing decorations in “special interest areas” while other areas–primarily the north side of the city–continues to deteriorate.
I'd like to see the current board impeached and thoroughly audited. I'd also like to see a citizen/employee board oversee all of their activities and requests as there are no proper checks and balances within city hall. They should also be required to possess a law degree and they must pass the bar exam. Make them earn the nearly $40k plus about $4k in expenses for their part-time job.
Let voters decide.
With so few incumbents facing a challenger the only decision a voter has is to 1) vote for the incumbent again or 2) not vote. As we saw in 2009, when you have an open seat there are many persons interested in running for office.
There is nothing stopping anyone from running for public office. Lots of things change in connection with aldermanic elections, including the redrawing of ward boundaries every ten years. If people are unhappy with their alderman, they can run for the seat. Most people are happy with their alderman, so they retain them. As far as reducing the number of aldermen, that would require a charter amendment in the city of St. Louis. Anyone is free to circulate a petition to change the number, get signatures, and put the matter to a public vote. As far prioritizing the problems we face in the city, cutting the number of aldermen is pretty low on the list, and franlky, a good case can be made for keeping it the same can be made. St. Louis has about fewer than one aldermen for every ten thousand residents. What's the ratio is Shrewsbury, Clayton, or Hanley Hills?
It isn't a “voter decide” issue. In November the voters did decide, we just don't have choices. I've challenged an incumbent, it is a huge hurdle to face. Antonio French is one of the few to unseat an incumbent.
I'm ok without term limits as long as we get rid of partisan elections for the Bd. of Aldermen. My guess is that for a majority of the City, most Aldermen are really selected by the democratic ward organizations and then face only token or no opposition in the actual primary or general elections. If we got rid of the partisan aspect, voters might actually have real choices in the general election.
I'm in full agreement, having partisan primaries and a general election in this city every two years is a huge waste of money and it serves no good but to maintain the status quo.
Term limits are a great idea for the aldermen, but the City would benefit greatly from reducing the number of aldermen. St. Louis has less than half the population it once did. Why are there the same number of aldermen?
Term limits would allow business interests to rule even more. We need an organized oppositional party that fields candidates. Or non partisan publicly funded elections.
In addition to cultivating more leadership talent in city hall, open races would go along way to engaging more people actively in local politics. Organizing and getting out and campaigning for your candidate of choice.
Need we go down the list of reasons why this makes sense?
It is humanly impossible for anyone to do any job year in and year out for a GENERATION and still have the same zeal, enthusiasm and open-minded thinking we need in this City.
Given the realities of what it takes to run for office (money, party politics), term limits in fact protect our democratic political system and give our citizens the most effective gov't, IMO.
And I do agree that these our aldermen/women routinely operate out of good intentions. I mean they live in St. Louis too. But to those aldermen/women reading this, doesn't 24 or 32 years in office seem a little ridiculous and frankly frightening? The job is not that tough that it takes 32 years of experience to be able to do it well.
You can ask as nicely as you want, but it ain't gonna happen. The longer one serves, the more indispensible one becomes, both in their minds and those of most voters, the old “if it ain't broke, don't fix it” syndrome. I've seen both sides, and there is no right or perfect answer, short of let the voters decide. With term limits, you have a couple of unintended consequences. Probably half the people kicked out ARE doing a good job, and “new blood” wouldn't be any better. And there will always be professional politicians, they just move onto different positions vacated by other term-limited politicians, using their existing and ongoing campaign resources, infrastructure and funding. Being an outsider or a newbie is always tougher – life ain't fair!
In order to be an effective leader, you need a network of supporters. The longer one serves in office, the bigger network you have.
How many followers does Fred Heitert have on Twitter? Facebook? Blog?
That's the new benchmark for excellence? A presence on the interwebs?!
Not for excellence but they are good measures of the size of a network and the ability of the leader to communicate with constituents.
Assuming the internet and new media are the means by which their constituents actually communicate. You'd be surprised how many people aren't into tweets, texts and pokes, and still prefer email, snail mail, phone calls and face-to-face contact. Just because you've got a 3G or 4G iphone or droid doesn't mean everyone does! Especially the cadre that actually votes in large numbers, those over 50!
I never said the only way aldermen should communicate is through Twitter or other digital means. But the opposite is equally true, to only communicate at a monthly neighborhood meeting as if everyone has the time and/or interest to sit there is insulting. They must communicate in numerous ways. I know plenty of folks over 50 that are digitally connected and many under 30 who are complete luddites.
If Alderman Heitert has been in office for over thirty years, somebody must be happy with things and since the 12th ward is one of the most stable in the city, maybe you hare the answer as to why he keeps getting reelected. Why mess with success?
Interesting that you find aldermen who “communicate at a monthly neighborhood meeting as if everyone has the time and/or interest to sit there is insulting.” My experience is that many people value this type of interaction, and that it rarely is the only way they communicate.
Communication is, duh, a two-way street. Yes, our politicians should be open to new ways, but don't assume that all the old ways are fatally flawed, and, more-importantly, that the new ones will work well and legally for the business of government – see boy-governor and deleted emails.
Some issues are of general concern, some aren't. The last time I spoke (face-to-face at a neighborhood meeting) with my alderman, he said that he responds to about 50 phone calls and 30 emails every day. I seriously doubt that he tweets or is on Facebook, but I have no complaints about being able to reach him or his responsiveness.
It sounds like if you're not getting daily tweets that you don't trust that the alderman isn't doing something behind your back, that you should have an opinion on everything AND that they're missing a real opportunity for your valuable feedback! The best way to become more involved is through building relationships; the worst way is to be a “bomb thrower” and/or a chronic complainer.
So, where's the effective leadership in St. Louis? I don't see too many leaders. Managers, coasters, spongers, schnorrers, but not much in the way of leadership. But, since most voters think their hack is better than your hack, and is an “effective leader”, they continue to vote for the same dead wood over and over again. Lotta dead wood in the aldermanic chambers. I'm even thinking I should include my own alderman, Shane Cohn. Really haven't seen much of anything come from him, except having the fire hydrants painted with a bunch of French curves. Of course, with the faulty form of government we have in this burgh, it's no wonder nothing seems to get accomplished. The infuriating thing about that is there are those, and they are legion, both within and without City government, who are perfectly happy with the status quo. City government is a fetid, stagnant cow pond. It needs a little fresh water every now and then. Hard to do when you get paid $32K a year, plus some expenses, for just showing up. And that's what most of your “leaders” do: show up. Antonio French is the only one, with some small exceptions, who has shown any desire to lead. He's out there talking, and more importantly listening, to people in his ward and others. Clone that mofo, and then we can talk about “leadership” in the City.
Voter apathy allows neoliberialism and the vestiges of the political machine to rule. These both, especially the latter, require concentrated power and reliable council votes. New aldermen are uncertainties they do not want. This is why the Young Democrats and other organizations like Slay's Vanguard Cabinet exist. This is why we don't have a Bosnian, Vietnamese, or Latino alderman. The machine serves itself and the business elite who find campaigns. Asking them to resign is insane considering most don't work for the City but their own interest and the machine.
How about less of them? There may actually be too much “Leadership” in DTSTL. I would like to see more accountability. As a resident and business resident, the way the city does business its as if it is more personal asset of the person holding power, versus that of a public servant. The word servant should be the form of humility they should show.
You mention Alderman, but how about others, such as Larry Williams? Treasurer since 1981. The most recent state audit here, http://www.auditor.mo.gov/pres… , which I found enlightening. There are several sites that offer the opinion of it, but it is not a difficult read either.
People in power are in direct conflict with their own human nature. So I am not calling out anything that is not part of all of us. You have to be vigilant against yourself and too few really are. There is an anecdotal stories about President Grant getting a ticket for riding his horse too fast. That is the type of accountability I would like to see. Wherein no man is above the law. Just yesterday I saw parking official parked illegally while he was inside eating at Franco's in Soulard. While that is tame, I know, it is that type attitude that must change.