David Michael Miller
Now that Wisconsin’s presidential primary is in the rearview mirror and the state legislative session has wrapped up, it’s time to remember that Madison still has a city government.
Alds. Mark Clear and David Ahrens are preparing to introduce a set of reforms that have the stated goal of balancing power between the mayor and the Common Council. Clear and Ahrens say these reforms aren’t tied to the current mayor. But after a series of budgetary showdowns between Mayor Paul Soglin and the council, it’s hard not to think these reforms are at least in part directed at our mustachioed mayor. Soglin opposes the proposals and has announced he will create a task force to examine the impact of city government restructuring.
Some of the alders’ proposed changes make sense. Changing the name of the Board of Estimates to the Finance Committee makes it more descriptive and clearer for the public. The committee reviews the budget and discusses big-money items — that sounds like a Finance Committee to me. Board of Estimates sounds like the group that would guess the weight of a pumpkin.
Having the council select the members of this panel is another good idea. The current system gives too much power to the mayor by letting the mayor write the budget and pick the members of the committee that review said budget. In the current system, the mayor even casts the tie-breaking vote for the committee.
With the mayor in charge of writing and committee review of the budget, the full council ends up making a bunch of changes to the budget. That leads to some marathon meetings. During budget season, council meetings have regularly gone all night, lasting past sunrise. That discourages citizen involvement and is an unfair burden for alders with other jobs and families. A less mayor-centric budget review committee could likely streamline the process.
While the changes to the budget review process are sensible, the reforms as written concentrate too much power in the hands of the city council president. Instead of serving for one year, the president would now serve a two-year term. The council president would be in charge of making all council committee appointments, including all the members of the “finance committee.” Clear and Ahrens even wrote in language that the council president should give preference to former council presidents when selecting these members.
To me, this expanded list of duties makes the position of city council president look more like a co-mayor. Instead of electing a mayoral king, the new system would have us elect two princes. With all due respect to the Spin Doctors, I’m not sure how that makes city government more accountable to the average citizen.
Electing a powerful city council president could factionalize the council and overcomplicate the council’s administrative matters.
Right now, I vote for the mayoral candidate who I feel has the best vision for the city. I vote for the alder who I believe will do the best job representing my neighborhood’s needs. Sure, political views play a part when selecting an alder — traditional Democrat is about as far right as an elected official can be in Madison — but politics takes a back seat to more mundane concerns. The mayor provides vision; the alder makes sure speed bumps get installed and fields questions about city services.
Under the proposed structure, I’d also have to weigh who the candidates for alder were supporting for council president. What if my alder backs the losing candidate for council president? Is that alder, and by extension, my neighborhood, shut out of the powerful committees for the next two years?
Mayors have the potential to be vindictive too. But I have the ability to vote against a mayor who doesn’t support my neighborhood. Given close mayoral elections, like the ones in 2003 and 2011, the risk of alienating an entire neighborhood is too high. There’s no risk like that for a powerful council president.
Intra-council power struggles like this aren’t just theoretical. Milwaukee has a council president with broad powers over committee assignments, and there’s now a power struggle led by two alders to oust the current president. Struggles like that distract from getting the city business done and create bad blood between colleagues.
I want to be clear about Clear — and Ahrens. I don’t think they are corrupt or trying to set up a corrupt system. They are both good members of the council who work hard to serve the community. I understand the frustrations they have had working with the mayor. But I fear these proposed reforms have the potential for unintended collusion and corruption in the future.
I don’t think it is a bad idea to let the council decide how council members are assigned to committees. But concentrating all that power in the hands of one person, the council president, is no improvement over the current system.
Alan Talaga co-writes the Off the Square cartoon with Jon Lyons and blogs at isthmus.com/madland.
