15
Jun
2004
Increasing Davenport city-council terms from two years to four years has some merit in terms of stability, especially when it normally takes at least that long to implement substantial capital-improvement projects. (See "Municipal Musical Chairs," River Cities' Reader Issue 480, June 9-15, 2004.) But the justification ends there.
The notion that longer terms would reduce inaction on the part of councilmen highlights the core problem: Individual council members tend to be more concerned with their re-elections than with their fiduciary responsibility of conducting city business as representatives of their constituencies. Re-election would follow naturally if this mission were fulfilled to the satisfaction of voters. Instead, councilmen defer decisions that they believe would negatively impact their chances of being re-elected. This self-serving strategic thinking alone is reason enough for replacing such individuals.
If any elected official fears losing a significant number of votes because of his/her support or rejection of particular issues dealing with city business, then that official should re-think his/her position on the matter, because it is highly likely that it is not reflective of the wishes of voters. These cases, which happen more often than they should, make it imperative to maintain two-year terms so that the public can correct for its misplaced confidence and trust.
Relative to this governance-terms policy, and because any change to such policy must come before voters in a referendum, voters need to be aware of the various lobbying entities in the community that put resources behind certain issues in an effort to persuade voters to support or reject a matter. DavenportOne is a good example of a local lobbying entity. It utilized resources to lobby voters to support a tax increase by Scott County for the downtown River Renaissance project. Depending on which side voters weighed in on, DavenportOne's lobbying efforts were viewed as either productive or destructive. The real question is whether DavenportOne's involvement was accurately reflective of its membership's wishes, or merely that of its more insular leadership. DavenportOne should justify its participation in such matters by substantiating proof of membership consensus, just as elected officials must defend their positions with legitimate voter consensus. Otherwise, governance ultimately benefits special interests, usually at the expense of taxpayers and the public good.
Finally, decreasing the number of council seats in a community of 100,000-plus people is irresponsible. Representation must mirror the diverse issues that exist, because without it, there is no chance for civic harmony or continued economic growth. I marvel at the short-sightedness of special interests who miss the dynamic that defines a vibrant economy - a broad range of consumers with a variety of wants and needs, for which competition provides choices that expand increased opportunities to capture revenues - in favor of securing economic positioning that limits competition, undermining consumer choices and reducing opportunities, especially in the long term, for increased revenues for all, including the special interests themselves.
The notion that longer terms would reduce inaction on the part of councilmen highlights the core problem: Individual council members tend to be more concerned with their re-elections than with their fiduciary responsibility of conducting city business as representatives of their constituencies. Re-election would follow naturally if this mission were fulfilled to the satisfaction of voters. Instead, councilmen defer decisions that they believe would negatively impact their chances of being re-elected. This self-serving strategic thinking alone is reason enough for replacing such individuals.
If any elected official fears losing a significant number of votes because of his/her support or rejection of particular issues dealing with city business, then that official should re-think his/her position on the matter, because it is highly likely that it is not reflective of the wishes of voters. These cases, which happen more often than they should, make it imperative to maintain two-year terms so that the public can correct for its misplaced confidence and trust.
Relative to this governance-terms policy, and because any change to such policy must come before voters in a referendum, voters need to be aware of the various lobbying entities in the community that put resources behind certain issues in an effort to persuade voters to support or reject a matter. DavenportOne is a good example of a local lobbying entity. It utilized resources to lobby voters to support a tax increase by Scott County for the downtown River Renaissance project. Depending on which side voters weighed in on, DavenportOne's lobbying efforts were viewed as either productive or destructive. The real question is whether DavenportOne's involvement was accurately reflective of its membership's wishes, or merely that of its more insular leadership. DavenportOne should justify its participation in such matters by substantiating proof of membership consensus, just as elected officials must defend their positions with legitimate voter consensus. Otherwise, governance ultimately benefits special interests, usually at the expense of taxpayers and the public good.
Finally, decreasing the number of council seats in a community of 100,000-plus people is irresponsible. Representation must mirror the diverse issues that exist, because without it, there is no chance for civic harmony or continued economic growth. I marvel at the short-sightedness of special interests who miss the dynamic that defines a vibrant economy - a broad range of consumers with a variety of wants and needs, for which competition provides choices that expand increased opportunities to capture revenues - in favor of securing economic positioning that limits competition, undermining consumer choices and reducing opportunities, especially in the long term, for increased revenues for all, including the special interests themselves.
