Urban Review STL

Jim, what bills are you referring to that have taken a long time to pass? Most of any of them needing approval are completed during a singular session. What do you mean by "glacial pace"? Are you suggesting elimination of aldermanic committees to speed up the process? Even with committee hearings, bills still pass in one session of the board. What's the problem?

Yeah, I don't really agree with this post at all. Even the federal government has recesses. It'd be nice if you'd provide some examples of this "glacial pace", instead of falling back on hackneyed complaints about government process.

Also, Jim, are you suggesting a bump in pay for these elected officials when we make the transition to a full-time board? They're don't exactly make a "full-time" salary, you know.

One bill is one of Steve's favorite, banning smoking in the city - it was delayed until after this year's summer recess.

No, I'm not suggesting a pay increase, although one would probably increase the number of candidates running. I'm not suggesting changing the committee structure, either - it's a critical part of the process.

I guess I view city government more as a business and less of an elemnetary school. Summer vacation is something few American businesses offer, with nearest being the summer shut-downs many factories (used to) do for 2, 3 or 4 weeks. And I don't see what the BoA is doing that makes them deserve an 8 or 9 week summer vacation every year - if a member needs a week or two off for an extended family vacation, just miss one or two meetings!

[slp -- the staff is full time, you have to wonder if they are kept busy during these breaks.]

It's politics before business. The smoking bill was no doubt delayed for political reasons. If there was sufficient support for the bill, it would have made it through the process.

Most bills are very ward specific, and so as a result of aldermanic courtesy, they cruise through the system.

Systemic changes, things that work citywide, are much more controversial and can get bogged down in the politics. That's how it should be. I wouldn't want anything fast tracked that didn't have broad based support.

I agree with the general idea though - I don't get 2 months off from my office job. I think those in the educational field should pretty much be the only ones getting "summer break" (though most of them don't really take that time off entirely - working second jobs, testing kids, tutoring, continuing ed, etc.). A/C would be a necessity to make it happen. And you're right, that's not gonna fly in the budget right now. But it should be somewhat of a priority. City business doesn't stop in the Summer.

City departments don't close. Other boards and commissions, especially the development agencies, work year round. The Board of Aldermen goes out of session. No big deal. Hey, they make the laws, and they set up this system ages ago.

A better topic would be whether the Board of Aldermen should return to a bicameral legislature. Such a system would help balance out the feifdom, ward-based model we have now.

Junior aldermen at the ward level could move up to a city wide aldermanic seat in the upper house. It would lengthen out the legislative process, create a parallel committee structure, etc, but would also create a more balanced power structure, where local ward and neighborhood priorities are measured against a citywide view of needs and goals.

Jim, again, could you provide examples of bills proceeding at a glacial pace other than the smoking bill? I am confused by your post.

To be fair, you could say the recess gives them a chance to focus on their constituency. To get around their ward and hear people's opinions, see what the problems are. When they are in session they have to be at City Hall all of the time, with the recess they are more free to move about.

Does that actually happen, not as much as I'd like. I think any sort of structural change to the way City Hall runs won't matter unless we get good people in there.

I like StL Neighbor's idea on a bicameral legislature. Try one house or chamber with a fluctuating number of members. As population fluctuates in the city, so does the ward sizes, and thus the number of aldermen. 20-30,000 people per ward?

Then have another chamber, elected by the city at large. 5-7 members? Staggered elections every two years, like the Board of Education.

The structure of city government in this town needs to change. Steve's suggestion of nonpartisan elections would go a long way towards getting rid of the foul and corrupt party system. Handing out little green slips in front of polling places telling you who to vote for would definitely be bad form in other places of the country, if not banned outright.

I stand corrected, "most bills" don't move at a glacial pace. As St. Louis Neighbor stated, "Most bills are very ward specific, and so as a result of aldermanic courtesy, they cruise through the system."

What I meant to say is that many controversial, "important", citywide bills move at a glacial pace (and many times, rightfully so). In the last session, BB 105, for "an ordinance pertaining to a registration fee for vacant buildings and structures" was introduced and has not passed. BB 117 was introduced to establish a registration process for rental properties and has not passed. BB 96 was introduced to adopt the current version of the International Mechanical Code and BB 20 was introduced to adopt the International Electrical Code; neither has been passed. Taking another couple of months off may or may not have a major impact in the long run; it just seems strange to me . . .

@St. Louis Neighbor:

Bicameralism on the local level seems insane and likely inhibit the city's ability to pass legislation. As a city of 350,000, St. Louis already has far too many aldermen at 29. And, what benefits are gained by having two bodies review legislation?

Los Angeles, a city over 10 times as populous as St. Louis, gets by with 15 city council members. Seattle has 9. Houston has 14. San Francisco has 11. Denver has 13. Portland, a somewhat peculiar example, has 4 (or 5 counting the mayor)!

Chicago has 50, but I hardly think Chicago should be a model of municipal government.

Handing out little green slips in front of polling places telling you who to vote for would definitely be bad form in other places of the country, if not banned outright.

Sidewalks are usually deemed "public forums" (or "fora" for the Latin lovers out there), and as a result, the First Amendment places strict limits on the manner in which the government may regulate speech that takes place on them.

In any case, a citizen who votes solely based on a slip of paper someone hands to her should really take a civics class, read a newspaper (or, say, a blog about local politics), and take her civic duty to vote more seriously.

Todd, the purpose for suggesting bicameralism is to counter the parochialism of our ward based system. What other alternatives would you suggest?

One benefit of a bicameral system is that a body whose members are elected citywide to act as legislators would have a check against a body whose members are elected by wards to represent specific interests.

Do people know that Missouri mandated at-large elections of municipal councils until 1933? For awhile, St. Louis had at-large elections of aldermen. The aldermen, though, represented specific wards. There was no residency requirement.

Of course, St. Louis had a bicameral system from the late 19th century through 1914.

Todd is suggesting a big reduction in the number of aldermen, which would be a much simpler way to "counter the parochialism of our ward based system". A bicameral system, where the lower house would presumably maintain the present ward structure, while adding another, more-broadly-based second layer, would likely be the worst of both worlds.

It all gets back to two issues, a logical fear of the unknown and and the expectations and the traditions of how any government operates. The current BoA is the "devil we know" - we know that our alderman will be very attuned to needs of his or her small piece of paradise and those of a relatively small number of constituents. We fear that if the number of aldermen is cut in half (and their ward doubles in size), we won't have the same access nor will we receive the same immediate, personal service we've come to expect on even the most minor issue.

As somewhat of an outsider, I struggle with the concept of aldermanic courtesy, where any issue that affects only one ward is rarely scrutinized or opposed by other aldermen. We elect our aldermen to run the city, not to run individual fiefdoms. I do expect my alderman to take the lead on issues in their ward, but I also expect other members, especially ones in adjoining wards, to use their expertise to temper any decision that doesn't benefit the larger city. I also expect city departments to do their jobs and to be responsive to citizen requests and complaints - I shouldn't have to go through my alderman to get an abandoned vehicle removed from a city street (as I recently did).

Unfortunately, aldermanic courtesy and accepting sub-par performance from city depratments is independent from the number of members in any legislative body. It's something that can't be legislated, it's something that's evolved over time, decades. Cutting the number of aldermen in half MIGHT change this dynamic, since their responsibilities would "double". In a perfect world, the result would be a more citywide view from each member and more of an expectation that every city department would be responsive to every citizen, not just aldermanic requests. But that can also happen with the present number of wards, but only IF there's a major change in expectations.

JZ - who is going to carry forward on your suggestions? I don't see any hands...

Like I said, the current BoA is the “devil we know”. There's a lot of inertia, and "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality. I know Denver's City Council works well, and I haven't been here long enough to see enough problems with the current BoA to mount a campaign to either change the structure or the culture. That's why I asked in the original post what others thought - it's easy for newcomers to assume the system they knew might be an improvement, much like how natives assume that what's worked for years shouldn't be messed with.

The reality is that any city government has only limited control over the city's economic destiny. Businesses aren't leaving St. Louis because of our ward system, but they may be leaving, or choosing not to come, because the city isn't responsive enough. If it takes years, and not months, to get a new development or an economic incentive package approved, then yes, taking a couple of months off each year may be an obstacle to our economic success - I'm just asking.

JZ - your frequent coupling of aldermanic procedures with the structuring of incentive packages for redevelopment oversimplifies the process.

Generally speaking, alderman are not economic development professionals. They are politicians. The development agencies are professionally run offices, working in cooperation with the mayor's office and other elected offices of the city.

It requires teamwork from everyone to get things done. Alderman can stop things from happening in their wards. But unless they want to subsidize efforts with ward funds by a factor of 100%, alderman can't make things happen without cooperation from the "outside world".

There is no "silver bullet" for making St. Louis a modern city. It is an old-style, eastern, conservative, democratic, ward-run city.