The Carbondale Observer

It looks like the General Assembly may consider consolidation or elimination of some local taxing bodies. From an article at Illinois Statehouse News:

Illinois has too many units of government, at least according to Illinois Sen. Terry Link, a Waukegan Democrat.

Link is behind a plan that would eliminate or consolidate some of Illinois’ nearly 7,000 taxing authorities. Illinois leads the nation with the number of taxing bodies. Pennsylvania is No. 2 on that list with about 4,900 taxing districts, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

“We’ve studied this to death, because Republicans and Democrats agree on one thing, we do have too many units of local government,” Link said.

Taxing authorities include park districts, townships, counties and even mosquito abatement districts. The large number stems from a 19th century law that limited how much debt local governments could take on. That law has since changed, but the large number of taxing bodies has not.

I support this in spirit, though I’m not sure about the specific method the bill would use. As I’ve mentioned, I think it’s silly to segregate every government function into a separate unit of government. I would prefer that most local government functions be performed by municipalities or counties. Of course, not everyone agrees. From the Illinos Statehouse News article:

Others had stronger opinions. Timothy Bramlet, of Township Officials of Illinois, called the measure unconstitutional. Having eight unelected people holding the fate of the more than 1,400 townships in the state in their hands is unacceptable, according to Bramlet.

Township Officials of Illinois is a private, not-for-profit group that represents most of the state’s 1,433 townships, according to its website.

“I think it usurps your authority, your power, the voters’ authority and power and the ability of townships and other local governments to make our case before you as elected officials, or voters by referendum,” Bramlet said.

Obviously the lobbyist for the townships would oppose the bill – if townships were eliminated he’d be out of a job – but I think he’s correct that the bill would be unconstitutional. Here’s how it would work, again from the ISN article:

Link’s measure, Senate Bill 173, creates an eight-person commission to study the topic. The four legislative leaders would each appoint two members to the commission, although no local government official could serve on the panel.

Commission members would then recommend eliminating or consolidating either a specific type of taxing body or individual taxing districts. A majority of the panel would have to agree for a unit of government to be put on the “end” list.

Ultimately that list would come out of the commission and then go to the General Assembly for an up or down vote. No changes could be made by legislators. If the Legislature doesn’t vote on the plan, it automatically goes into effect.

And this is what Article VII of the Illinois Constitution requires:

SECTION 5. TOWNSHIPS

The General Assembly shall provide by law for the formation of townships in any county when approved by county-wide referendum. Townships may be consolidated or merged, and one or more townships may be dissolved or divided, when approved by referendum in each township affected. All townships in a county may be dissolved when approved by a referendum in the total area in which township officers are elected. (Source: Illinois Constitution.)

That’s seems pretty clear to me. Eliminating townships requires a referendum. Obviously some changes will be necessary to ensure the bill withstands judicial review. I didn’t see anything else in Article VII that specifically addresses the other special districts. I’m not sure if it would be constitutional to consolidate or eliminate them using the process in the bill.

I think this is worth pursuing. It isn’t necessary to have a separate elected body for every local government function. Counties and municipalities should absorb the functions of the other units of government, and the change would benefit democracy. Most people don’t have the time or the interest necessary to keep track of seven or eight separate taxing bodies. Outside Chicagoland, it’s better to have municipalities take care of themselves and counties take care of rural areas.

I want to be clear. This isn’t a left vs. right debate over whether we should have more or less government. It’s a debate over how many units of government we should have. In fact, when the bill passed out of committee, all six Republicans (including our own Dave Luechtefeld) voted against it. Consolidating local government functions into fewer units of government is a sensible reform that deserves our support.

Comments are welcome.

The Southern Illinoisan had an article Tuesday on George Maroney’s official announcement for mayor. From the article:

The first-time political candidate said he would work to improve the city’s business climate, lead the discussion on consolidating elementary school districts to save money and attract young families, and more closely follow Carbondale’s city manager form of government.

I’m guessing the talk about consolidating school districts refers to District 95 (elementary) and District 165 (high school). Or maybe he’s talking about consolidating the various elementary school buildings into one. I assume he’s not talking about consolidating with the Unity Point and Giant City districts.  Consolidating 95 and 165 would be a great idea, but I wouldn’t want to see the elementary school buildings consolidated.

As I’ve mentioned before, I don’t like the talk of a restoration of the council-manager form of government.  An active mayor is an important source of political leadership. The functions of a mayor and city manager are different, and both are important.

But I’m not sure Maroney intends to be a weak mayor:

Maroney said he believes Carbondale’s city government has strayed from its original design and he would act as a CEO, delegating authority to its proper recipients.

Castle Perilous owner and blogger Scott Thorne had a post on the Carbondaze Gazette commenting about this:

Delegating authority to proper recipients is much easier when you are the ultimate authority, as Maroney was during his tenure at Memorial Hospital. The mayor, first, has to respond to a number of different publics and, second, has to convince the rest of the city council to agree with any initiatives he wishes to implement.

Exactly.  I would add that under the council manager system, the mayor is not the CEO. Title 1, Chapter 2, Article A of the city code (navigation on the left) addresses this. The mayor is head of the city for legal purposes in relationship to the Governor and presides over city council meetings.  Title 1, Chapter 3, Article A assigns most executive functions to the city manager.

As Brad Cole has shown, there is room in the council-manager form of government for an active mayor providing political leadership. If people don’t like the direction in which Cole led the city, they should elect someone who will lead in a different direction. We shouldn’t just decide that leadership itself is the problem. I hope voters will make this an issue in the 2011 election.

I’m wondering if a clear Cole successor candidate will emerge.  I also wonder if Cole will endorse anyone.

Comments are welcome.

In yesterday’s post about election issues, I mentioned form of government as a possible issue.  I want to explore that subject in a little greater detail.

Historically there have been four main forms of municipal government:  mayor-council, council-manager, commission, and town meeting.  Carbondale presently uses the council-manager system.  The mayor is a voting member of the city council and presides over council meetings.  The mayor and council appoint a city manager who carries out the administration of the city government.  You can read about the powers and duties of the mayor in Title 1, Chapter 2, Article A of the Carbondale City Code (navigation is on the left).

In a council-manager form of government the position of mayor is usually not very important.  Aside from a few symbolic functions, the mayor is essentially just the presiding member of the council.  The mayor lacks veto power and generally lacks hiring and firing power.  This is sometimes called a weak mayor.

When Brad Cole took office he chose to become much more active than previous mayors.  Despite the lack of formal powers, he has driven the city’s agenda at least since he became mayor.  Arguably, Cole was driving the agenda when he served on the council before being elected mayor.  Cole uses his superior knowledge of city government and superior preparation to increase his power, and he wins more often than he loses.

This might not be controversial in itself, but Cole is a Republican mayor of a mostly Democratic community.  He has been effective at getting things done, but there have been many citizens who haven’t liked what he’s done.  I think many of the objections relating to form of government really have more to do with Cole’s agenda than with his active role.

If that’s true, then it’s worthwhile to ask what kind of mayor we should have.  Do we want a mayor who is merely a glorified city council member, or do we want a mayor who actively leads the city?

I think we are better served by a powerful, active, and preferably full-time mayor.  The mayor is an elected official accountable to the voters, while the city manager is an appointed official accountable to the city council.  The distinction is important.  A mayor is a political official with a political base.  He or she has gone through the election process and built a network of supporters.  A mayor is able to exercise leadership in a way that a city manager can’t and shouldn’t.

I don’t mean to suggest that we don’t need a city manager, just that the roles of city manager and mayor are different.  A city manager provides professional administration.  A mayor provides leadership.  Carbondale needs both.

Comments are welcome.

I’ve already posted about some of the potential mayoral candidates for the 2011 city elections.  Now I want to look at a few of the probable issues.

Earlier this year there was a move to allow grocery stores to sell beer and wine.  This seems pretty reasonable, as grocery stores are allowed to sell alcohol in most cities.  The city council tabled the move for now, but the Chamber of Commerce and many local residents support it, so this issue could return.

Crime will likely be an issue in next year’s elections.  Over the last couple of years, the number of armed robberies and muggings seems to have increased dramatically.  Each week when I open the Carbondale Times the police reports contain at least one mention of someone being robbed while walking at night.  It’s hard to say what can be done about this, but a reallocation of police resources away from writing drinking tickets and toward preventing these violent crimes might be a good start.

During the past few years, notable historic buildings have been destroyed in Carbondale.  The old Bank of Carbondale building, which housed the Stage Company for many years, was torn down in 2005 along with a few other buildings.   

The Tuscan Lodge, where famous musicians like Miles Davis, Duke Ellington, and Cab Calloway once played was demolished in 2009.  The First Baptist Church, which stood at the corner of University and Main for over 100 years was also demolished in 2009.

The Stotlar House, a beautiful example of prairie style architecture, was demolished this year.  There were unsuccessful efforts to save the Tuscan Lodge and the Stotlar House.  I’d be interested in seeing candidates take positions on a stronger historic preservation ordinance.

Form of government may become an issue in 2011.  Brent Ritzel is on record favoring an aldermanic system of government.  Carbondale voters rejected a move to a ward system in 2001, so I’m not sure how far this idea can go.

The role of the mayor has been somewhat controversial in recent years.  Current mayor Brad Cole has been an active, full time mayor, and some don’t like that.  The Southern Illinoisan article announcing Fritzler’s candidacy quoted one local man as saying “It seems like we’ve strayed from the council-manager form of government. I believe he’s going to restore it.”

In the 2007 mayoral elections, Brad Cole explicitly ran to be a full time mayor and Sheila Simon was running to be a part time mayor.  At least in 2007, the voters preferred to keep Cole on the job full time.  We’ll see if it becomes an issue this time, especially considering that two candidates, Maroney and Goldman, are retired and could presumably serve full time.

Mayor Brad Cole himself may turn out to be a key issue in 2011.  Cole has both supporters and enemies in the community and his two terms have had their share of controversy.  Fritzler has been especially critical of Cole.  If a clear successor candidate emerges, the election could turn out to be a referendum on a third Cole term, even though Cole will not be on the ballot himself.

Economic development and redevelopment are sure to be issues in 2011, but I will cover them in a future post.

These are the issues that came immediately to mind for me.  What have I missed?  What issues do you think will be important in 2011?

Comments are welcome.