It's clear that County government--like all other units of government in America from local school boards to the federal legislature--is a mess. Representative government by its very nature will be messy because it is charged with making public policy in an environment sometimes featuring fierce disagreement between affected citizens, interest groups, etc.
A good definition of Clean Government is that form which does not try to hide the mess, but allows maximum citizen participation in it and insists that all participants play by the same set of rules. We do not have Clean Government in Madison because the mess is hidden in closed partisan caucuses, while elite lobbyists get disproportionate access to the system and the ears of the representatives. The same is true in Washington.
Let's bring this down to the local level. We are living in a time when some very well-meaning individuals believe that reducing the size of the Winnebago County Board of Supervisors would actually produce cleaner government. There are also some very not-so-well-meaning people who understand that smaller boards mean bigger districts, which means more expensive election campaigns, which means greater access for those able to fund campaigns, which ultimately means public policy that shows even greater deference than is currently the case to real estate, corporate, and other private interests.
A good example is Loudon County, Virginia. According to today's Christian Science Monitor, Loudon is the "poster child for development run amok." The region is the worst example of the "hypergrowth" afflicting many regions in the country. And what have been the effects? According to the story:
The effects of such rapid development have been intense. At rush hour, rural Loudoun's scenic two-lane byways crawl with traffic that moves more slowly than the new six-lane access road to the east. Air quality has worsened as smog levels have shot up. As thousands of new houses go up each year ahead of water and sewer lines, residents face water shortages and newly polluted streams. If current growth continues, the county estimates it will need 125 grammar schools in the next 15 years.
Loudon is 25 miles outside of Washington, D.C. I just spoke to a Loudon County government employee, who told me that her husband is a construction worker who each day commutes 90 minutes to get to D.C., and 90 minutes back. Think about that: 180 minutes to travel 50 miles.
So does Loudon County have an unwieldly, 38 member Winnebago County style Board of Supervisors that helped create this mess? Nope. Loudon County has a 9 member board. But surely the 9-member board must be much less expensive to run, right? Nope. The Board Chair makes $40,000 per year, while the other 8 supervisors make $22,000 each. Each supervisor is also provided a full-time legislative aid. The supervisors have full-time careers outside of county government. It's clear that real estate and other pro-sprawl interests have gotten pretty much everything they've wanted from Loudon County government.
There is going to be a strong push in the next few years to reduce the size of the Winnebago County Board of Supervisors. Think we have sprawl problems now? Wait until the smaller board becomes more accessible to, and easier to manipulate by, sprawl interests. Do we really want Loudon County style hypergrowth?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Tony,
Nice try. But your's is a convoluted argument.
You can't be serious comparing a county adjacent to Washington D.C. with Winnebago County. They aren't even in the same universe.
Second, supporters of a smaller board have never claimed it would be cheaper. The compelling argument is the fact that 33 of 38 seats are uncontested. If you're worried about special interests influencing government, worry about 33 supervisors getting a free pass to the board without debating issues or taking positions on land use or urban sprawl.
Does anyone know what the 33 stand for? Who's to say they aren't already influenced by evil developers.
A smaller board, say 24 seats, would encourage contested elections, which gives way to robust discussion of ideas.
No one has proposed a nine member fulltime board with full time salaries.
Don't use an extreme example in the largest growth corridor in the country to equate to what people are calling for in Winnebago County. It is intellectually dishonest.
It isn't even an apples to oranges comparison. It is more like apples and celery.
Nice try anonymous. Your response manages to be both convoluted AND uninformed.
First, On comparing Winnebago and Loudon Counties: Counties are most often compared by population. Winnebago County's population is about 160,000. Five years ago, before the "hypergrowth" spurt, Loudon County's population was 169,000 -- making it a very fair comparison to Winnebago. Loudon County managed (or more accurately failed to manage) the growth with a nine-member "professional" board and an appointed County Administrator.
Let me also say that when Jim Mather and I used to cover this topic on Commentary, smaller board advocates always used to make the comparison to Los Angeles County--a county with a population of 9 million and only 5 county supervisors. (And nightmarish growth patterns aided and abetted by the government just like in Loudon, I might add).
Second, on whether supporters of a smaller board have claimed it would be cheaper: Of course they have. The local mainstream press has spent years lambasting the per diems and the travel budget, suggesting that a smaller board would be cheaper.
More directly, the November 1990 Task Force Study on "Efficiency and Effectiveness of Winnebago County Government" (a document regularly referred to by board size reducation advocates) said the following:
"Expenditures on supervisor per diem allowances and mileage and materials necessary to operate the county board will be between $125,000 and $135,000 for the 1990 fiscal year. A board with 20 members would cost approximately $65,000. This would be a very substantial savings." They then conclude that "while a large board can make effective decisions, a small board can make these same decisions, but in a more efficient manner and at substantially less cost. Winnebago County may be paying for more government than it needs."
SO YOU ARE JUST FLAT WRONG WHEN YOU SAY THAT SUPPORTERS OF A SMALLER BOARD HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THAT IT WOULD BE CHEAPER.
The task force assumed, of course, that all of the functions currently carried out by the large board could be carried out equivalently by a smaller board.
Third, on a smaller board giving us more contested, "robust" elections: Here too the 1990 Task Force Report is instructive. They claimed, as any rationale person would, that there is no way to know if a smaller board would encourage more citizen participation. But then they make an observation which I think is at the root of the call for a smaller board in Winnebago County:
" . . . There is the possibility that there is a relatively fixed pool of people who are interested in actively participating in county government and that this pool is somewhere in the 40-60 person range (including those currently on the board). A smaller board would not encourage _more_ people to run (the word more is given emphasis in the actual report), but it would mean that the most qualified people in this pool would be more likely to be elected."
There you have it: a smaller board helps to ensure that "the most qualified people" would be more likely to be elected. And who are "the most qualified people"? The report doesn't say, but if you are willing to exhibit the intellectual honesty you are so ready to accuse others of lacking, you will have to admit that they are talking about "professional" candidates drawn from real estate, banking, finance, and other Chamber affiliated interests.
Winnebago is a growing county in which pressures for sprawl development are increasing at the same time the nation is in the throes of a global energy crisis that puts into serious question the wisdom of all such growth. As I said in my original post, all representative government is a mess. But I find little compelling evidece available to suggest that smaller, more "professional" boards of supervisors manage growth any better than larger boards. You certainly have provided no such evidence.
Tony,
You often talk about Clean Government and Campaign Finance/Election Reform, but you fail completely to take into account voter apathy. The "mess" that our Federal, State and local governments are is not hidden at all--recent headlines in both local and national media are dominated by Abramoff, Delay, the Wisconsin legislative campaign financing convictions, etc. Voters are not devoid of "access" to government, but are rather largely ignoring it. I cannot tell you which is the cart and which is the horse (big money government or lazy voters) with any more certainty than you could, but you have to balance the equation. Election turnouts are ridiculously low. Citizens have the opportunity at many corners to petition their government, but we cannot even get a majority to exercise the most basic guaranty of our Republican government. Maybe it's NOT just the money representatives are listening to. Maybe they're listening to interest groups because interest groups are the only ones talking.
You are right about the very nature of a representative government--it is slow, and debate is fierce. This was the design! You constantly reprimand the city council for rushing things through. You should applaud any instance of slow, fierce debate within any chamber of government.
There are only five contested seats on the Winnebago County Board this spring. Bigger districts does not correlate inevitably to more expensive campaigns; it may instead lead to real races with real dialogues about the issues facing Winnebago County. And who knows, a real debate might ignite public interest and inspire more citizens to get involved--or at least hit the polls.
You are so eager to shriek "big, bad, dirty government" that you fail to examine all sides of the problem.
And the previous poster is correct in that your comparison is moot. Oskosh is far from the sprawl problems of one of the nation's largest metropolitan areas. If suddenly we were comparable to a DC suburb I think we'd have a lot of other issues to talk about.
Dear Anonymous #2:
Thank you for your comments. I agree with you that voter apathy is a problem. However, if we are talking about government in Madison and Washington, even 100% voter turnout would not change the fact that much of the business goes on in closed, partisan caucuses. That is an affront to our system of government that needs to end. Even mainstream editorial writers are starting to come to this position.
Much of the mess is indeed hidden; one of the reasons why Doyle despises Peggy Lautenschlager is because she has been the most fierce advocate for government openness the AG's office has ever seen.
I don't know what you read in my original post, but if I said anything to suggest I want government to move faster I take it back. I DO applaud slow, fierce, debate: just not when it takes place behind closed doors out of the face of the public.
Sprawl is a major problem in northeast Wisconsin. I cannot find the links anymore, but a year or two ago some of the major papers in the state reported on the worst sprawl areas in Wisconsin and northeast Wisconsin was near the top. As noted in the Christian Science Monitor article I cited, Loudon county is the EXTREME example--it is therefore a good example for all counties to compare themselves to in order to see how far or how close they are to that nightmare. As said in the article:
"How Loudoun deals with its growth can teach the rest of the country a great deal," says James DeFrancia, a trustee of the Urban Land Institute. "It's become a little test tube."
We would be foolish to ignore what's going on there or think that our problems are substantially different; our problems are merely different in scale. But they are the same problems.
Would a smaller county government of "qualified" people handle these problems better than our current board? To answer "yes" to that question, we would have to find governments that began to address sprawl problems more seriously the moment they reduced size. If you know of any examples of that, please fill me in.
And finally, perhaps one reason why more people don't participate is because the moment they state their ideas passionately, they inevitably have to deal with anonymous critics who accuse them of "shrieking."
I believe a smaller board would make supervisors be more accountable for their votes , as the members of the city council are. I know how every council person votes on every issue. The same can not be said for our county board supervisors. They are able to hide among the 37 other members. There are people on that board who do not have a clue, they never speak and are able to blend in. A smaller board would expose them and make all members accountable. I am not calling for 5 or nine members, but something close to 20 would be more manageable.
I agree. Many of the current board members simply do not have a clue. There just are not enough qualified candidates to fill that many positions. Something must be done to improve the quality of board members. If reducing the size of the board is something that can accomplish that, I'm all for it.
And finally, perhaps one reason why more people don't participate is because the moment they state their ideas passionately, they inevitably have to deal with anonymous critics who accuse them of "shrieking."
I cannot guess how many people have said some variation of this to me when I have asked them to go to a meeting and show that they care about things PUBLICLY. There they are at home, pounding on their kitchen tables, mad as hornets, but they will not risk entering the dialogue. Not if you paid 'em. Speaking out gets you a certain type of notoriety, but it's a kind "nice" people usually don't want. They don't want the other stuff either.
So, those people usually end up telling someone, a vocal someone, "I can't do it myself, but you go give 'em hell".
So you end up having officially elected people who "represent" a group of people, and then you have these rogue weirdos, saying things that many, many people are thinking and saying, just not publicly.
The burn-out rate for activists is pretty high I hear. Folks who manage to hang in there for any length of time can deservedly get out of bed in the morning, look in the mirror and say "Oh yeah, who's the Beast!"
Know what I'm sayin'? I think ya do.
The Wisconsin State Journal today calls on the Dane County Board to cut its size from 37 to 19. Part of the rationale:
"This would save taxpayers more than $100,000 in salaries alone and improve efficiency and cooperation." --TP
They make alot of valid points in the piece.
Post a Comment