All city councils need a balance of ward representatives and at-large
members. For precisely Rosalind's reasons - and many others: not only does
it allow for alternatives to the fiefdom-controlled ward members who
manipulate their constituencies by either attention or neglect, there are
options for those wishing to serve but cannot because entrenched incumbents
rarely lose the only election held in a given neighborhood. Further, the
question of perspectives is critical: At-large members bring a citywide
perspective to a body enmeshed in parochial concerns, i.e., only those that
affect their wards and constituents, with a rare nod to the the effect of
legislation on the city as a whole. Votes are traded regularly, and while
this would not be entirely eliminated by a mixed system of representation,
it would be more difficult to bend one's policy perspective for a colleague
whose constituents can't register their protest at the polls, at least
residents would have an alternative to seek out.
The red herring of diminished representation for minorities under a mixed
system will surely be thrown out here, but after studying this issue
extensively as a member of the St. Paul Charter Commission, the numbers
simply not only do not add up, but the reality is the reverse: more
representation for everyone and more opportunities to serve.
Ask yourselves these questions: should voters have more than a single
person representing them on the city council (or anywhere else, for that
matter), or at least two, perhaps three, with two, three opportunities to
redress grievances? Should residents have just one or two or more
opportunities to run and serve on public policy bodies that determine our
quality of life?
Here's the rub: historically, people of color do not vote in the same
numbers as white folks, leaving predominantly white neighborhoods as the
source for more votes on at-large seats. But, the numbers will also tell you
that white folks do not hold back votes for candidates of color in urban
areas of our ilk.
In St. Paul, our first black elected city councilmember was elected at-large
when the council was still elected at-large: Bill Wilson, who went on to
serve several terms as at-large and Ward 1 councilmember and retired a
council president. Before that, our top vote-getters in school board races -
and to this day all at-large - have been men and women of color.
Southern cities, with their manipulative constructs have kept people of
color off elected bodies for years but, the courts have found, only because
there is a monolithic white community vs. a monolithic black community. We
have a long way to go to meld our communities here, but monolithic is not a
word one can use to describe our subcultures here, especially in politics.
Sharon Sayles Belton is a perfect example of someone of color, elected
at-large three times in defiance of challenges by white guys and white women
all over the place.
The Brian Herrons of the world will become far more responsive if they must
share their constituents with at-large representatives, and the at-large
members will offer a citywide perspective that may well contrast with the
mayor. Mayors need the same challenge. They should not be the only elected
official representing the city as a whole.
Now, whether proportional representation is introduced at the same time
could make a charter re-vamp both interesting and more representative of the
city's diverse populations and political perspectives.
But as long as an all-ward system with winner-take-all elections remain in
place, you can count on fiefdom arrogance in varying measures to come from
your ward reps, meaning the lack of response to emails, phone calls, letters
will continue if the representative doesn't like what you're saying.
Good luck.
Andy Driscoll
--
"Whatever keeps you from your work is your work."
Albert Camus
The Driscoll Group/Communications
Writing/Graphics/Strategic Development
1595 Selby Ave./Suite 206
St. Paul, MN 55104
651-649-1188/Fax:651-645-3169
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.driscollgroup.com
> From: "Rosalind Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 20:20:37 -0500
> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Karen Forbes Venting her spleen on Council Herron
>
> The times that I called, the person who answered the phone said that Herron
> would call me back. He didn't. The past couple times, I told the phone
> person my concern and hoped that he got the message. Maybe I should ask
> for Connie Kiser or Vickie Brock, or write to them or send them email. At
> least then I would have some sense of whether things were getting through.
> It seems as though someone in his office could have advised me that they
> were the people to talk to.
>
> I want to emphasize that I don't have a good alternative. If we had "at
> large" council members, I might have some other recourse, and this wouldn't
> be quite so frustrating.
>
> Rosalind Nelson
> Bancroft
>
> At 07:20 PM 10/7/00 -0700, wizardmarks wrote:
>> The people on my block never report lack of return calls. They get answers,
>> though not always from Herron personally. Sometimes they come from his
>> assistant or his aide. The last study of the Ward 8 office, done by Vernon
>> Wetternach, I think, showed that the ward gets at least 160 calls a week,
> plus
>> letters--and now plus e-mails. Wards 5, 6, and 9 also get substantial calls.
>> If you called to complain about something, it was forwarded to the department
>> which handles the problem (i.e. public works, forestry, etc.). If you called
>> to give him your opinion on an issue, there's no reason to return the
>> call/letter/e-mail. If you called to give him informtion, it was checked
> out.
>> I usually send e-mails or leave a message on the phone. Many times I talk to
>> either Connie Kiser or Vickie Brock instead. It's a team effort office, so
>> that works too. Course, I never try to front him off in public meetings or
>> call to cuss him out.
>> Wizard Marks, Central
>>
>
>
>
