Between now and election day on April 2, I’ll write a handful of blogs on city issues that I think are important, but aren’t likely to be in the mainstream of discussion during the mayoral and council campaigns. My thinking is that those top-of-mind issues will be well covered elsewhere. But there are some important, bigger picture long-term issues that we have a chance to shed a light on while the campaigns are in full swing.
Let’s start with the size of the council itself. Madison has 20 alders elected by district. That’s big for a city our size; other cities have councils elected citywide or they are a hybrid with some seats chosen by district with others selected by the entire city.
Last year the council and the mayor created a Task Force on Government Structure charged to “examine the structure and powers of the Common Council and its committees and the structure and powers of the Mayor's Office.”
Eileen Harrington, the task force chair, tells me that they are likely to start working on drafts of their report in March and seek public comment on the report this spring, but probably after the mayoral and council elections. One issue they’ll tackle among many is the size of the council and the question of districts versus at-large seats.
That will be a timely discussion because if we decide to change our system, now is the time to do it. After the 2020 census, districts will have to be redrawn so that they have nearly the same population. Those new districts will take effect as of Jan. 1, 2022, so they’ll be used for the first time in the 2023 council elections.
Just a caveat here. Redistricting in Madison has been done by the planning department and has been pretty much free of politics. Don’t expect the kind of gerrymandering and court battles that we see at the state level.
Some have argued that the time demands to make policy and serve constituents in a growing city make our current part-time council impractical. They say that part-timers will always make up a weaker legislative body vis-à-vis a full-time mayor and that it’s unfair to ask people to fill these more demanding roles on a part-time basis with a part-time salary. Others say that the council has been creeping toward becoming a de facto full-time body anyway by increasing its salary and adding staff, so we might as well just recognize it. And then there are those who think that 20 members is just too big. In a city where everybody has an opinion, 20 voices complicate and slow the process.
Here’s what well-respected former Ald. Mark Clear, probably the most consistent advocate for a smaller council, has to say: “The workload and compensation problems are insurmountable in the current structure. A full-time council of 20 would be unwieldy, expensive, and probably errs too far on the side of excess capacity, creating a vacuum that might be filled by needless activities or potentially, shenanigans. Seven full-time alders, with a total compensation (salary + benefits) of about $60,000, would be sustainable, affordable and highly functional. It would recognize the complexity of the job, and make it more accessible to those of modest means without making it so desirable as to invite corruption.”
My own view is that, while some of those arguments are valid, there’s just too much to be lost by reducing the council size and going to a full-time body. We need only look down Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard to see that a full-time legislative body doesn’t always improve policy making. And full-time salaries and larger (or citywide) districts will lead to much more expensive campaigns, inviting special interests into the process to an extent that they don’t really enjoy right now.
This may seem like an esoteric issue to some, but it’s actually fundamental. It goes to the kind of folks who are likely to end up representing us, the role of interest groups in the electoral process and the relative power of the council and the mayor.
Here’s what the candidates told me in email responses. Candidate Nick Hart and write-in candidate Toriana Pettaway did not respond.
Mo Cheeks: I've thought for some time about this, and really look forward to the committee's recommendations on the matter. I think the size of the council is good. A part-time resident council largely fits with the culture here. One recommendation I'd make, and I'd continue to support this as mayor (if the council wanted it) would be to invest in greater continuity of service — by way of additional support staff.
As our city is growing and the challenges that we face are increasingly dynamic and frequent ... having the public be served by a council with more staff support would aim to ensure that every district and every neighborhood is served more similarly. Having a family or not, being retired or not, being in school or being an executive —
should all be assets to the diversity of thought on the council. And we should support that diversity of thought with more staff that play more of a direct role in engaging constituents. And just like in other cities, or in the legislature — they'd use modern constituent services software to ensure transparency and results along the way, and would also work together to research policy solutions.
Satya Rhodes-Conway: I support keeping the council the size that it is, to preserve the level of representation that Madisonians currently have. I also support increasing the council staff and having them take on more constituent service responsibilities to allow alders more time to focus on policy and city-wide issues. Similarly, I would encourage the council to invest in professional development for all alders.
Raj Shukla: I am eager to see what the ad hoc committee releases on this and other subjects in the days ahead.
There is value to the idea of retaining or even expanding on the current size. Adding more voices to the important discussions around our challenges being one. But there is a risk of diluting the voice of representatives too, effectively expanding the relative power of the mayor.
There are also real benefits to reducing the size of council and making them full-time government positions. Alders frequently comment on the tremendous workload. And limited compensation also limits who can afford to participate — people with young families appear [to be] rare in the council chambers.
The dysfunctional relationship between the mayor and council in recent years may have a much more straightforward reason: They aren't committed to working together. For that, I put the responsibility squarely on a mayor's shoulders. I do not believe a mayor can make people collaborate. But I do believe a mayor — like the leader of any organization — sets a tone and demonstrates how business will be done.
The example set by the current mayor is not constructive, and increasingly ineffective. Acting like the smartest person in the room wears thin. It also isolates the office from the collective genius of this community. We have everything we need to tackle our problems — including the ideas and energy of our private sector, university community and nonprofit leaders across Madison.
We need leaders who recognize our strengths and have the political will and skills to use them. I will be that mayor.
Paul Soglin: My initial thought is that we should reduce the council to 16 or 18. Based on population that would still leave us with one of the largest councils per capita in the United States.
The issue is complicated by two recent decisions, absent public discussion: Significantly increasing council members’ salaries subsequently led to council members [being] eligible for retirement contributions and health insurance benefits.
Historically, Madisonians, given a choice between a council that worked for an honorarium part time or full time choose the former. With today's salary and benefits, the council resembles a full-time council. A full-time council for a city our size should be no more than five or six members which I don't think anyone wants.
Hopefully by 2021, before we get the results of the 2020 census, the people of Madison will be given the opportunity to choose their government rather than having this decision made through last minute budget amendments by the city council.
