|
|
||
|
|
Why a Charter Commission Will Hurt Saginaw
Since then, with the firing of Debbie Kimble, Saginaw's residents (and business community) have been plunged into the worst crisis of confidence in city government that I can recall. I hate to say this, but I believe that as a result, many families who hadn't previously are now questioning whether they'd rather live somewhere else. I've given a lot of thought to what should be done about the firing. I won't straddle the fence - I supported Kimble. I didn't agree with everything she did, but she impressed me. In fact, over the last year or so, when people would tell me they'd like to see me run for City Council again, I'd reply that I really didn't think I was needed there, because Debbie Kimble was doing fine. I am deeply concerned with the firing because I think it sends a signal that our Council isn't stable, and therefore, Saginaw's not a good place to make an investment. I
don't have any friends who think Kimble's firing was justified (nor does the
majority of the Council - now), but I do have friends on both sides of the
recall issue. Some are actively working on the recall, and others won't sign
the petitions, because although they don't approve of the Council's conduct,
they don't believe it crosses a threshold that warrants this extreme action. However, as I've pondered what needs to be done to restore public confidence, it has occurred to me that there are larger issues than when some of our current Council members leave office. The largest question is this: How do we create a city government that can provide the leadership and stability that will encourage investment in Saginaw, by businesspeople and families deciding where they want to reside. I
have two ideas to add to this discussion. I believe they are both more
important to Saginaw's future than whether or not Council members are recalled.
One is something we shouldn't do, and one is something we should. There are changes I'd like to see in our City Charter. One example is to eliminate the ban or participation by Council members in partisan politics, because I think it's wrong to force members to resign when they become candidates for the legislature. Another is to have the Council be the direct employer of the City Attorney. The tenure of Reed Phillips as Manager, and his wife Cathy Ginster as City Attorney is a vivid illustration of the need for Council to have access to independent legal advice, in order to exercise effective oversight of the administration. Midland's City Charter provides for this arrangement. It's not a departure from the council-manager model; it's a common variation. I think there's some merit at least in theory to a mixed system of wards and at-large members system. I understand this has become somewhat of a trend in charter rewrites around the country. In this model, ward representatives ensure attention to neighborhoods and at large members ensure attention to general welfare issues. All ward systems can spur competition among ward representatives for the scarce resources of government, and the deals they produce can cut some neighborhoods in and others out. To be fair, they tend to increase attentiveness to neighborhood concerns, as opposed to decision-making that focuses exclusively on general welfare, and both levels of concern must be addressed for the citizenry to have a truly responsive and responsible government. That being said, I find the Schmids' idea of wards that span the river actually helping to create racial harmony very naïve. We have too much black vs. white, east vs. west mentality in the City already. Creating districts that span the river will produce black vs. white, east side vs. west side races for Council as the norm. This irrational theorizing on the part of likely Charter Commissioners disturbs me. When all's said and done, after all these years studying local government, I've come to the conclusion that there's no predictable correlation between the form of democratic government and the results it produces. However, there is a strong correlation between decision-making tendencies of local officials and the "political infrastructure" of activists who get them elected. The Kimble crisis isn't a reflection on our system of government. I don't believe there's any evidence to suggest that a different form of government would have ensured a different result. I see no correlation between our form of government and the level of participation in politics we could expect from the community. I don't see any evidence that a new form of government will increase "accountability". The fundamental accountability tool is already in place. It's called democracy. And a fundamental problem with democracy in Saginaw is that very few people participate in it. Turnout for elections is abysmal. Less visible but equally troubling is the fact that community leaders don't actively support candidates by campaigning for them. I find it strange that large financial stakeholders don't attempt to protect their investments by attempting to elect local officials who will make wise decisions. It seems a strong indicator of dysfunction in a city of almost 60,000 people, with a valuation of 600 million dollars, that candidates are elected to Council who have raised less than $1,000 for their campaigns.
Believe me, in Lansing and Pontiac and Grand Rapids, a candidate must attract
far more financial support than $1,000 to be politically viable. Ability to
raise money is one good indicator of ability to build coalitions in the
community, and coalition building is a key attribute of an effective elected
official.
Let's imagine the proposal passes, and a commission is formed. The members of the commission are likely to include more than the Schmid coalition. I believe they're likely to have substantial areas of disagreement. The potential there is to create a brand new "playground" where black and white, east side and west side members can illustrate our divisions and inability to come together. But let's put that suspicion aside, and assume the commission writes a Charter and submits it to the voters. The vote on the new Charter probably takes place in November 2005, more than a year from now. At that point, the Charter will either be approved or rejected (my money's on it being rejected, but I'm not too confident I'm right). If
the proposal fails, we've just wasted more than a year attempting to fix
something that wasn't really the cause of our problems. It's kind of like
invading Iraq to get Osama Bin Laden, isn't it? And if the proposal passes, we'll move into the phase of electing new officials. I'm guessing this will take at least six months, moving us into May of 2006. So, from today, we're looking at more than a year and a half of instability, with the citizen's and the business community not knowing what to expect. No manager candidate in her or his right mind will be interested in coming to (or staying in) Saginaw for the next year and a half (or more?). Now, if we approve a strong mayor charter, and mayoral candidates use racial divisive campaign rhetoric in that Spring of 2006 (Race politics in Saginaw? Wouldn't THAT be a shocker?), what do the residents and the business community of Saginaw do? They've been through the ringer for a couple of years. They're sick of the instability. No investment has been taking place, the city budget problem has continued to fester, and the Mayor (white or black) has made them feel insecure about the city's future. Do large numbers of residents decide to throw in the towel and move to the suburbs?
People have left the City for a variety of reasons. Some just wanted a bigger yard and more privacy. Some left for what they perceived to be better school districts. And yes, some moved out of racial prejudice. For many years, we saw flight as a white thing, but now we see flight by middle class families with the means to make the choice in all racial and ethnic groups. Our key challenge is to stabilize our population and attract more people and businesses back into the City. To consider a change in our form of government, or even a discussion of it at this level during this time of insecurity, gives one more reason for a family or business to decide to leave, or not to move in. You have to ask yourself, do the potential benefits of this new form of government outweigh the potential negative unintended consequences of the process, and continuing the gut wrenching insecurities we now face?
However, the most heartening aspect of what's happened during this painful time has been the many members of Saginaw's African American community coming forward to condemn the conduct of the members who voted to fire Kimble. This shows that the situation is NOT about race for most of us. It CAN be about unity. It can be about quality decision-making, and this is a really great opportunity that we can't afford not to seize. Now I have to give a short lecture on "The Recent History of Saginaw's Local Politics 101", as interpreted by me. Back in the 1960's and 70's virtually all members of the Saginaw City Council and School Board were white. Most of these elected officials were supported by a group of local political activists that went by the names "The Committee of 50" and "United Saginaw Citizens". This group was primarily (if not exclusively) composed of Republican business people. In fairness to the group, I believe they supported Henry Marsh, Reuben Daniels and other black leaders, but by and large, their success produced large majority white, and conservative, governing bodies. In reaction to this, in the late 1970's/early 80's, a group of African American residents organized a group called "Operation Equality", and promoted slates of black candidates for the City Council and School Board. They'd recruit candidates and campaign for them, notably by standing outside majority black voting places with palm cards that told voters who their endorsed candidates were. The ultimate success of Operation Equality was the election of black majorities on the School Board and City Council in 1983. Since then, both of these bodies have ebbed and flowed in terms of racial composition, but both have had substantial biracial representation for the last twenty years. Hispanics have had some success, but it's been a rocky road. In fact, for the last 15 years, the City Council has elected African Americans to the office of Mayor without exception, even when the majority was white. So, Operation Equality was a success. In my opinion, that's a good thing. We should have governing bodies that reflect the diversity of our community. However, this fight over the complexions of our local government officials has had a negative effect too. It has encouraged factionalism over coalition building, and control over quality decision-making. Many of us - black, brown and white - wonder what this control is worth, when it's control in a fight over the size of the slices of a shrinking pie. Operation Equality still exists. I'm not sure it's called Operation Equality anymore, but it exists. The group is still behind the election of the vast majority of African Americans who've served in local and state government posts. The poll workers are still there on Election Day. You may have read about relatively new group called the Coalition for African American Leadership (CAAL). In some ways, CAAL is the new name for Operation Equality. Most of the same people who started Operation Equality are prominent members. CAAL is just the next generation. The
problem with this organization is that it's focused not on equality, but rather
on control. And it's not just about control of the bodies by the African
American community; it's about control by the clique that composes the
organization. You won't see Charles Coleman endorsed by this group,
because he hasn't toed their line. Obviously, although our new manager is an
African American, he doesn't have the support of CAAL members who serve on the
Council. I tried to form such a group a few years ago, with prominent members of the community, a synthesis of the old "United Saginaw Citizens" (white Republicans, mostly suburbanites now), active Democrats, and African American leaders - a cross section of the community. I then went to work for then-Congressman Jim Barcia, and withdrew from the effort to focus on my new job. Unfortunately, the group never got off the ground. I
think recent events make the case for this new group even stronger than it was
before. Forming this group is something that should be done. I'm
convinced the majority of our people on both sides of the river would embrace
this approach. Right now, we have to right this ship and make people confident that they can invest in business and becoming residents of the City of Saginaw. To do this, we have to elect members to the Council based on recognition that diversity is necessary to good government, but that it can't and doesn't have to result in disharmony and irrational decision-making, born of the political agendas of those who seek control at the cost of progress. Once
that's done, maybe we can debate our form of government again, but NOT NOW.
|
|
|
|
Enable frames | |
|
home | out/about | events | personal | store | classified | real estate | forums | archives | contact |
||
