Poll: Thoughts On Ald Young’s Bill To Reduce The Board of Aldermen From 28 To 12 Members In 2022
An interesting bill was introduced to the St. Louis Board of Aldermen on Friday:
BOARD BILL NO. 31 INTRODUCED BY ALDERWOMAN PHYLLIS YOUNG, ALDERMAN STEPHEN CONWAY, ALDERMAN ALFRED WESSELS, ALDERWOMAN CAROL HOWARD, ALDERWOMAN JENNIFER FLORIDA, ALDERWOMAN DONNA BARINGER, ALDERMAN JOSEPH RODDY, ALDERWOMAN MARLENE DAVIS, ALDERMAN SCOTT OGILVIE, ALDERMAN SHANE COHN, ALDERWOMAN LYDA KREWSON An ordinance submitting to the qualified voters of the city of St. Louis a proposed amendment to the charter of the city of St. Louis restructuring the board of aldermen as a body of twelve (12) aldermen representing twelve (12) wards, providing a transition schedule for such changes, and other related matters; providing for an election to be held for voting on the proposed amendment and for the manner of voting; and for the publication, certification, deposit, and recording of this ordinance; and containing an emergency clause. (BB31 page)
The bill details how over the next ten years the change would take place. The new 12 wards would be based on the 2020 census figures released in 2021. On December 31, 2021 we’d have 28 wards and on January 1, 2022 we’d have 12. The bill language contains typos such as 1915 instead of 2015, those will get corrected in committee presumably.
The bill’s primary sponsor, Phyllis Young, and one co-sponsor, Fred Wessels, were both first sworn into office on April 16, 1985 — over 27 years ago. They are the most senior members in the Board of Aldermen. Wessels is a candidate for the citywide Treasurer’s seat. Is Young making one big push as before retirement at the end of her current term next year?
Of the eleven sponsors of the bill only one is black, Ald. Marlene Davis. Other black aldermen likely see the reduction as a way to reduce black influence at city hall. One of the newest members, Scott Ogilvie, is a co-sponsor. Otherwise nobody elected after 2003 is a co-sponsor, they want their chance to be in office for nearly three decades.
If the bill gets through the Board of Aldermen it will appear on the November 6, 2012 ballot where it needs approval of 60% of voters since it’s a change to the city’s charter.
The poll this week seeks to get your thoughts on this bill and the change it’s trying to accomplish, vote in the right sidebar.
– Steve Patterson
Never, in no way, is less representation a good idea. We already have poor representation throughout our government (city, state, and federal). I don’t know how this can be seen as anything but a consolidation of power. And, you don’t have to be black to see it, which is the other interesting part of this article. Do you (the author) think this move appears to be different depending on ones race? This is an interesting thing we do in the media today… Republicans are saying the sun rises in the West. Democrats are disputing those statements. Disputing? How about of we simply call bullshit when we see it?
The motivating factor here is to reduce the cost of government. Critics have pointed out that while the city is cutting things like trash pickup and public pension costs, it is not doing anything to reduce the size of government. So this is seen by proponents as sharing the pain.
One, I think it’s a great idea. Two, does it preserve / affect the office of President of the Board of Alderman? Having an odd number voting reduces the likelihood of tie votes.
In reality, the direct cost of operating the current Board is relatively low, and reducing the number of members will result in only a small actual budget reduction. In other cities of similar size, where fewer members represent more constituents, they’re both typically paid more and have paid support staff. The big savings will (hopefully) come from taking a more wholistic approach at looking at the city. Instead of bickering about and making sure that each ward gets “equal” services and investments, larger wards will have larger, more diverse issues to address, and the overall budget will be spent more wisely. And representation is all about quality, not quantity. A “good” alderman is accessible and responsive to constituent concerns. A “bad” one operates in a vacuum and/or is only responsive to only a portion of their constituency. It doesn’t matter if there are 12,000 residents (current) or 28,000 residents (proposed) in a ward!
I served on the last charter reform committee. Among its recommendations was to cut the size of the Board of Aldermen to 14. Cutting the board whether it be to 12 or 14 will not provide less representation comparatively. In 1950 we had 800,000 residents and 28 aldermen for about 28,000 per alderman. Today we have slightly more than 319,000, so at 12 we would have 26,000 (and dropping) per alderman. do we want to hang on to the old way until we are down to one family, one alderman?
14 is exactly half of 28, so you could unite pairs of neighboring
districts without changing the boundaries of any district. 12 districts
would require dividing all the districts from scratch, which might
become corrupt/political.
Any time the boundaries change (every 10 years, after every census), the door is opened to potential political shenanigans and “corruption”. As long as the populations are equal among the new wards, the biggest challenges will be maintaining “communities of interest”, respecting natural geographic boundaries and not putting too many neighborhoods into more than ward.
I still have no idea why people think that having fewer elected representatives will somehow magically result in better government.
Quite frankly, if wards get bigger, money and political organization become more, not less important. There is no way an independent like Scott Ogilvie gets initially elected if he has to run in a ward 2-3 times as big. Having fewer wards also doesn’t mean that somehow only the bad/lazy aldermen will lose their seats and only the good current aldermen will stay on.
The only way we are going to get better government, at all levels, is if citizens value civic engagement to a much higher degree. When we do develop that greater sense of civic engagement, having a low number of citizens per elected representative becomes a good thing since in a democracy there is nothing quite as demotivating as having a supposedly local representative who doesn’t represent your values or even your local community as happens far too often with our ridiculously sprawling congressional districts.
We had 28 aldermen when the population was 850,000+ so the number of residents each represents has shrank as they’ve allowed the population to decline. Back then we actually had two parties rather than the one we have now. Why do you think each aldermen having to represent far fewer people is worth keeping the status quo?
As a general principle, I believe that having a relatively low number of citizens per representative is a good thing. It makes it easier for neighborhood leaders, community activists, and true citizen legislators to get elected and serve without having to raise tons of money and/or kowtow to arguably corrupting interest groups.
But ultimately, whether or not the city has 4 or 400 alderman, it won’t make a lick of difference if we don’t foster an all-around greater sense of civic engagement, because sadly, people generally get the government they deserve. If people think their government sucks, the first thing they need to do is look in the mirror.
Disagree with your first paragraph, agree with your second. And part of the problem with civic disengagement may lie in the small ward syndrome. In our small wards, most aldermen act more as ombudsmen, acting as one-stop intermediaries between citizens and the various city agencies charged with delivering services, than acting as legislators, guiding the budget and debating and setting citywide policies.
Over the years, I’ve worked with (and on) policy-setting groups with both relatively large numbers of members and with relatively few members. If one wants to actually accomplish something, smaller groups seem to work better. If you just want to talk about things and “kick the can down the road”, larger groups seem to be the answer. It probably boils down to empowerment. A large group, with each member having a little bit of power, seems to spend more time debating nuances, while a small group, with each member having more individual power, seem more focused on delivering actual results.
As for an individual being heard and having their opinions respected, well, that boils down to the specific listener / representative / alderman. It doesn’t matter if it’s a large group or a small one. I’ve had three aldermen over the seven years I’ve lived in the city, each with differing levels of visibility and accessibility. You can’t legislate this, people are people, each with their own ways of interacting and each with their own agendas and priorities. It’s a rare case where the two of you will agree on every issue, so if you agree on the majority, life is actually pretty good.
The city faces significant challenges. Inertia and the status quo don’t seem to be working, especially when it comes to seeing needed reinvestment happen in many parts of town. Keeping the weeds cut and vacant buildings boarded up won’t pay for pension costs and crumbling infrastructure. Sales taxes and earnings taxes aren’t growing revenue sources without parallel growth in retail sales and private-sector jobs. While we need potholes fixed and clean streets, we also need big-picture thinking. Bottom line, we need better results, and the current system ain’t working!
This brings up the other question Steve…why can’t the other party or any party get a foot hold in this City…..And it’s not the Democrats keeping them out. If the nuts running for the big chair can get elected across the country, surely there must be a nut or two in St. Louis ?
It is a good idea. I am amazed at the number of times this issue has been addressed in comments on this blog….from non-working alderman to too many to cutting goverment spending to …….on and on. YET as of now there are only 4 comments. So typical a reflection on current affairs. Everyone wants to bitch, yet when it comes down to it…cut someone else’s services but not mine.
Bigger cities have smaller groups. St. Louis can and must do it. Consolidation of power? Well duh, that’s a given. If you don’t like the ones in power, vote them out.
Also I found the interview in the Post most interesting….The north were against it, the south for it….typical and yeah, as we get closer you bet your dollar people are going to drag in race….again.
I also found it interesting that the Alderman of one north area stated he “had too much to do dealing with trees, trash, dumping”….etc…..and I’m thinking that this is what’s wrong with out City…there are already departments to deal with these issues. Alderman don’t need to deal with a neighbor’s tree or trash (and also why I won’t run…I like our alderwoman and I don’t have the patience to hear about neighbors trash, dumpster or tree isses)….
So this alderman has too much to do now, but (and this was the closing quote)….if the positions were cut and the salary raised to $150,000, then it’s possible.
So now he is working too hard to cut positions, but cut and raise his salary and it’s possible. WTF is not loud enough for my outrage. Democrat or Republican…this is exactly what is wrong with this f______g s__t. Me Me Me Me. Pathetic. and people like that are pathetic representatives.
And least you think I think it’s a good idea to consolidate…it SUCKs. The devil is in the details…and the details are it will NOT take effect until NEXT decade….Nice of the south alderman to have a set of balls. Just kicking it down the road and doing NOTHING for the current and short term future budget. If they really wanted to help the City, they would have the intestinal fortitude to do so now and put their jobs on the line rather than down the road.
This is the same bull crap the Fire Department union is trying to do with Reed. Presenting some minor surface changes for the good pr for the people that like 30 second sound bites but God forbid they be willing to discuss or change any of the current benefits.
Maybe in this instance, we need the State Capitol to tell the City to cut and cut NOW not 10 years down the road.
While I live in Clayton, I can still have an opinion about STL City government, can’t I? Indirectly, the health of STL impacts the health of Clayton. Cutting the size of the board of aldermen from 28 to 12 or even 14 does not address the real issue of problematic city government in STL. The entire city charter should be revised to eliminate the so-called county offices so that all the various departments are under the control of a central office/department. Can you begin to imagine the number of redundant city employees and services that could be eliminated if the six or seven county offices were eliminated? Then, pick a conservative number: 30%! I would bet that at least 30% of all employees currently “working” in these offices are patronage-appointed, and that the actual work accomplished by each of these patronage employees could easily be performed by the remaining 70%. How many secretaries, redundant payroll staff, HR departments,etc could be eliminated if entire departments were restructured/consolidated and jobs were eliminated? And if STL City residents are going to hold Mayor Slay and/or his successors accountable for the health of ST Louis City (its growth/continued decline, its crime rate, its overall health), shouldn’t the good mayor have total control over all departments? With proper checks and balances in place, I’m betting that a strong mayor with far-reaching control might be able to turn ST Louis around to more like it was in the distant past. Without these and similar changes, it will continue to decline as it has over the past half-decade, at least.
Totally agree Msrdls. But to change the charter requires an act of State. The mayor, like him or not, should be in charge of every aspect of the City. Then if you don’t like the mayor’s policies, you get rid of the them at the ballot box.
Not entirely; in 2004(?) there was a statewide referendum asking whether St. Louis residents should be allowed to change their charter; it passed.
I would take the board down to 10, eliminate the Board President, hire a City Manager, and pull the Board of Aldermen entirely out of the day-to-day city functions altogether. The ‘county’ offices should go, but only if the City rejoins the County, and then only if some of the offices remain downtown (to avoid emptying out downtown). The City would retain point-of-sale tax status, and would be allowed to attempt annexation in the County (no guarantees of success though). Lastly, the residency requirement for City employees would go away (except for the City Manager).
My feeling is that city services would be a LOT more effective, and responsive, and the quality of service would also go up.
To amend the city charter, I think 60% of voters need to approve of the proposed change….whether it’s a change from 28 to fewer aldermen…..or a total charter revision. And if STL supports charter reform, what’s the big deal with State approval? As it now stands, Phyllis’ proposal is a band-aid, with very little potential economic impact or resultant ciity-wide reform. Why not go for broke?
how come the options on the poll change after you’ve voted? i voted for “great, wish it could happen faster”, which now appears to be “great, way past due”
I changed that answer before the poll started but the software sometimes takes a while to adjust.
@Msrdls….it’s a big deal because way too many representatives in Jeff City have no concept of urban dwelling. hence they try to impose what works in Podunk Missouri on Kansas City and St. Louis. Just witness how hard it’s been to try and revert police control back to local.
@876e680b2c0dfbc4a8c9874ecbbecd4c:disqus
:…….and so you’re saying that STL will be saddled with that archaic governmental form ad infinitum? And, if not, when is a good time (if not today!) to start greasing the gears and getting wheels turning to effect change? The reality is that St Louis once was considered a progressive and viable city. And it would appear that over the past half to full century, “something” less than positive has happened, and it is painfully obvious that (certain) people in general no longer regard it as such. We need to find out why STL dropped from the top ten cities to where it currently ranks. Geography and weather haven’t changed! Maybe…..just maybe….STL’s decline has something to do with the way the city is administered–with all its segregated fifedoms and self-serving departments and county offices, each with layers of wasteful redundancies and soverign authority over all things governable. There are reasons why certain (NOT ALL!) potential residents look beyond STL and decide to live in the suburbs where things are a BIT (NOT TOTALLY) less complicated and more conventional. Many blame the city’s decline on racial tension. So why can other cities better deal with race issues? Are St Louisans inherently stupid, close-minded, prejudiced? Why is it that, nationally, St Louis is beginning to develop the same reputation as East St. Louis? When I was transferred to St Louis recently, why did colleagues advise me to exercise extreme caution when purchasing a home and especially when selecting a school for my sons? I’ll tell you why: because the city is filled with violence, and the schools don’t measure up to industry standards. Things could only get worse if something doesn’t change.
Not saying that at all Msrdls….not at all. What I’m pointing out is that it faces a very uphill battle at the State level. I and quite a few other city folk are darn tired of rural people thinking they know what is best for St. Louis (and Kansas City). They have no clue as to the complexities of social and economic issues of large urban areas. And as much as I like Dooley, I’ll be damn if I give up my city to county people who think their crap don’t stink! (present company excepted Ms.)
In my conversations with “county” people about the possibility of marrying the City and the County some day in the future, I’ve never gotten the impression that anyone I’ve talked with feels that his crap is without odor. Each of us is aware that we are all limited by our humanity. When we collectively crap, we collectively smell. But I have gained a reasonable understanding about county residents’ attitudes toward unification. Fear is a major concern, and it impacts several facets of life: 1) Education: The concern is that the county system is incapable of swallowing all the issues and baggage associated with City schools, including the apparent lack of commitment to education among both city parents and pupils, and the growing discipline problems in city schools. They acknowledge that County schools are not without fault and failure. But overall, the impression among County residents is that county schools fare much better than city schools. (This is NOT open to discussion. It is an opinion among county residents.) 2) Government: Layers and layers of patronage jobs at St. Louis City Hall, juxtaposed with redundant self-serving county divisions, politically entrenched aldermen, clueless committemen, family members of aldermen, all of whom answer to no one other than the taxpayers every 4 years, many of whom obviously don’t read the papers or know what’s happening at 12th and Tucker, or who have no clue whatsoever about levels of expectation among the chosen ones. Otherwise, why would these people continue to get reelected? 3) Financial instability: A dwindling population, hearty tax abatements to favorite-sons developers, aging infrastructures, infighting and apparent disdain among certain members of the the police board and the mayor, and between the mayor and the fire department, even petty bickering between the mayor and certain members of the Board of Aldermen, along with a potential crises associated with police/fire pension-related issues overall, which could easily result in bankrupting the entire City unless addressed, and soon. 4) Quality of life: Granted, certain areas of the city are obviously very safe, generally. But other areas need to be avoided. Acknowledged: not all areas of the county are even “liveable”. But check out the crime reports in the next two weeks’ editions of the Post, and I think the reports will clarify if the City or the County is safer, BASED ONLY ON THE PUBLISHED CRIME REPORTS. So, someone’s perception is that County residents question the smell of their own crap, when in reality most County residents are just not open to the thought of carrying all the city’s baggage. . Excuse me, Moe. It’s piling up really deep around here, and I need to flush. Fast.
1) Opinion or not. Riverview and some of the other failing districts are in the county. Education is run by local boards of way too many few. This is exactly the problem I mention….people in the county look down on the City. And btw, City schools are improving. 2) Gov….there are hundreds of patronage jobs in the County and all the sub-townships….many with taxing authority mind you (but different issue)….Consolidation means more them giving up power than the City…I don’t see that happening. Anyone else? Issues you sight could easily be any place in the county. 3) Really? The City population was rebounding until the recession, and it will quickly pick up speed…matter of fact it is rebounding faster than some areas of the County. Yes, I see everyone in the County boards getting along. Riverview Fire district is just so lovely. Again…all these are faced by the county and multiplied by each taxing division, town, etc. The City is no better.
You point out my reasons against merger very well. People with the mindset you posted who think the City is failing, unsafe, and on and on. Please look in the mirror.
Why don’t county people push for consolidation of the hundreds of taxing districts, stop giving away TIFFs, get all their schools up to par and control their own crime before complaining about the City?
I didn’t expect you to go on the defensive. The COUNTY is not actively exploring the possibility of merging/joining with the city. Most of the talk goes on at 12th & Tucker.. My intent was to EXPLAIN why my neighbors don’t want anything to do with consolidation. Whether they’re right or wrong is not the issue. The issue is that items 1 through 4 are their concerns.You obviously think they’re frivolous concerns. They don’t. In the eyes of my Clayton neighbors, the City is NOT a desireable place to live. Are they right or wrong? Who knows! But you can bet that they’d live there if they thought there would be any advantage doing so.
Not at all Ms. Those are very important concerns, but my point is that they touch more than Market or Meramec (that’s the headquarters right? forgot)…my points were basically the same issues from this side of the fence from a number of people.
In any case, it’s a long haul and there is mergering to be done out your way and here in the City.
There is always room for improvement…it’s just getting it done right and the voters behind it.
Until we get past the mindset that Small is Beautiful, be it in the city (wards) or the county (“cities”), merger or consolidation ain’t gonna happen until a major fiscal crisis forces the issue. It may be schools or it may be pensions, but why would any political entity, that’s relatively better off, voluntarily assume the liabilities of another entity, that’s relatively worse off?! We’re seeing the tip of the iceberg in the county with the recent discussions about reallocating the sharing of sales tax revenue. We’ve seen it in the recent past when Clayton, Richmond Heights, Brentwood and Maplewood explored merging. We see it every day with any significant fire in the county resulting in multiple mutual aid responses. But for whatever reason, people in Missouri seem to be extremely leery of “big guvmint”, which probably explains why a state with 6 million people has 115 counties, 500 school boards and 900 fire districts . . . .
Does St. Louis County assume the liabilities of Wellston? Charlack? St. Louis would be among the 90+ municipalities already in the county. State law sets up the legal distinctions between county and municiplal entities.
For the sake of argument, let’s say the city of Wellston reaches the point of insolvency (the Wellston school district has already failed). The city has assets (tax revenues, vehicles, real estate) and it has liabilities (unpaid bills, outstanding bonds, pension obligations). The liabilities are greater than the assets. Both University City and the City of St. Louis abut Wellston – they’d be logical rescuers. But why would the leaders / residents / voters of either city want to annex / merge with / take over a financial liability? I doubt that any sort of valid argument could be made. The only (slim) reason I can think of would be an increased population base.
That leaves the city of Wellston “going away”, presumably with county taxpayers taking over responsibility for basic government services, things like police protection, courts, elections, etc. That leaves contractors, vendors, bond holders and pensioners left “holding the bag”, unpaid, even though they worked with the city in good faith. That also leaves big questions about failing infrastructure / deferred maintenance. Should the new, larger entity be responsible for bringing things up to date, or should the residents who couldn’t afford to support the old city be hit with special assessments?
I think the Berkeley Fire Dept. recently had its power turned off for unpaid electrical bills. The taxpayers in the better parts of St. Louis pay higher taxes than properties in other parts of the city, yet the city continues to spend money acquiring, boarding up and sometimes demolishing vacant properties. Yes, we are our brother’s keeper, but everyone has limits. Given the choice, I want to see my tax dollars going to something productive, not just cleaning up someone else’s mess / mistakes.
We had 28 Alderman when we had a population of over 800,000 back in the 1940s. Now we still have 28 Alderman and the city only has 300,000+. There is too much over representation in this city, it contributes to the decay of North St. Louis because no one can do anything right since EVERYONE, no matter how big or small the community is is represented. I believe this is a step in the right direction! Why should communities that have lost over %20 of their population since 2000 (I looked at the US Census Bureau for this FACT) and continue to dwindle need representation when the Alderman of that ward can’t even keep his own people there? Answer me that please.
30 years too late.