Wants, needs and ditches

A debate possibly best captured by English historian Edmund Burke is one we might consider in our pondering about the future governance of more than 80,000 Fort Smith citizens in this second-largest Arkansas city.

With apologies to Bill Shakespeare, whether we prefer our elected leaders to be trustees or delegates is the question — at least in this pondering. Should our elected officials attempt to legislate based on the whims of the majority, or should they legislate based on their interpretation of what is in the best interests of all. Put another way, do we “hire” city directors to do as we say, or do as we need.

Our city directors are pulled in all directions. My rough estimate is that 15%-20% of Fort Smithians want the city to do/spend less and the same percentage wants the city to do/spend more. These are the vocal minorities (Although recently, the do/spend less crowd is more vocal — and more angry — than the other.). That leaves 60%-70% who trust that the city board will do the right thing at each fork in the road.

The Founding Fathers were divided on this broad debate; so much so that part of the compromise was to create a chamber of trustees and a chamber of delegates. The U.S. House of Representatives are our delegates, and we remind them of our political zigs and zags every two years to ensure they stay close to the often superficial wishes of their electorate. Members of the U.S. Senate are our trustees, and we give them six years to shield them from the ebb and flow of fickle constituencies. (With minor differences, this holds true also for the Arkansas General Assembly.)

Which is to say that the House theoretically is obliged to give us what we want and the Senate is to protect us from what we want. In a direct sense, the trustee/delegate debate is a progeny of the Garden-of-Eden (mythologically, rather than biblical) debate between wants and needs.

Burke, an 18th century political philosopher, noted a little more than 236 years ago that he certainly preferred elected officials to be trustees. In his Nov. 3, 1774, “Speech to the Electors of Bristol,” Burke noted: “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”

Going further, Burke said “government and legislation are matters of reason and judgment, and not of inclination; and what sort of reason is that, in which the determination precedes the discussion; in which one set of men deliberate, and another decide; and where those who form the conclusion are perhaps three hundred miles distant from those who hear the arguments?”

Municipal governments rarely have the luxury of bicameral governance, and must rely on elected officials to determine individually if they are delegates or trustees. Even in municipal governments with a mayor-council form, the delegate/trustee role is largely undefined.

It is even more undefined in our form of government in which we have no electoral say over the day-to-day management of our fair city. Unto seven city directors — with just four of those representing specific districts within the city — do we allow to make decisions that in this next budgetary cycle will include how to operate within an estimated $224.5 million overall budget. Of that, the about $40 million general fund is relatively discretionary. But even that discretion is limited considering that the general fund budget pays for fire, police, administration and other critical city services.

My dilemma is that I prefer the city board be trustees; that they spend the necessary time to investigate issues without weight of preconceived bias and make decisions they believe in the best long-term socio-economic interests of the city. I am less interested in how a director votes on a particular issue as long as his or her series of votes results in the most progressive yet financially responsible outcomes. (And before you Tea Party folks lose your minds and respond in ALL CAPS, please know that by “progressive” I mean a city that is attractive to the recruitment and retention of a broad demographic base of businesses and citizens. Unfortunately, progressive has been negatively tied to socialism.)

If we invest millions in quality-of-place initiatives, yet fail to provide adequate police, fire, water, sewer and other fundamentals, what good is the quality of place? Conversely, if we shrink city government so that we never responsibly pursue amenities beyond the fundamentals, what good is the quality of place?

The dilemma exists in that my preference for trusteeship runs against my awareness of how dysfunctional our city board has been in recent years.

Needed now is a focus on the fundamentals. There are many recent examples of board dysfunction that qualifies a trustee preference. Examples include an inability within the past decade to responsibly decide convention center management and funding; the rare consideration through the course of each year on “top priority” goals set by the board at the beginning of each year; the enabling of Bill Harding’s illness; the hiring and resignation of Randy Reed; the hiring and firing of Dennis Kelly; and, the financial condition of the city’s water and sewer system.

The water and sewer system finances is a clear case-in-point. We find ourselves upside down with respect to the revenue required to meet bond covenants. One reason for this financial problem is that a whole host of fixed water charges — what the city requires for citizens or developers to pay for sewer/water access — are based on rates established more than 20 years ago. One of those rates was set in President Reagan’s first term. Seriously. For those of you who believe it reasonable to continue with 1983 charges for 2010 costs, please check your medication schedule.

However, we are unable to compromise with having a separate group of delegates and trustees. But maybe we can compromise with separation of time for the two choices. In January we will have three new members on the seven-member board of directors, and a new mayor “ceremonially” presiding over board meetings. And although two of the city director-elects hold promise to be responsible trustees, I propose we ask the board to instead be our delegates for the next 12-24 months and simply focus on getting the fundamentals in order.

Resolve the convention center issue.

Review city departments (personnel, budgets, goals, etc.) to ensure they provide the leadership and organizational flexibility needed to support a smart and progressive city able to respond quickly to economic ups and downs.

Bring the cost of providing basic services in line with modern realities. And maybe that effort should include a move to require citizens to pay the true costs of those services rather than subsidizing (hiding) true costs behind sales tax collections.

And although easy to say but difficult to do, maybe we ask the board to commit to procedures that allow a competent city administrator to administrate without the paralyzing burden of board micromanagement.

And maybe the focus on fundamentals includes the board and citizens conducting an honest evaluation of what form of government we think best to correct our weaknesses and maximize our opportunities.

The point of all this rambling is really a simple bargain with the new board of directors: If you elected guys and gals will change the oil, get the tires aligned, check the heat and air, fill up the tank and get us out of the ditch, the majority of us won’t be back-seat drivers as long as you keep us out of the ditch and drive us to a cool future.

Deal?