This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, July 18, 2012 - Reform can begin with a single step. The beginning of change can create a climate allowing solutions beyond the norm to at least be considered. For too long, St. Louis City has operated with institutions and procedures redolent of the 19th century. Those familiar with the system and those who benefit from it (or think they do) have resisted major reform packages.
Along the way, many St. Louisans have eschewed lessons from other cities because “This is St. Louis.” Some think the city is unique while others doubt whether St. Louis could do better.
Neoinstitutionalists stipulate that institutions create the parameters in which action takes place: They dictate what is right and proper behavior. When institutions change, the parameters and behavior will eventually follow suit.
To begin the process of reform, an overwhelming majority of the members of the Board of Aldermen have voted to put before the voters a proposition that would reduce the board to 14 from 28 after the 2020 census and resultant redistricting.
Among central cities, St. Louis has had the fewest residents per alderman. The aldermen have functioned as legislators, developers and ombudsmen who respond to resident concerns about stop signs, derelict property and tree trimming. Aldermanic intervention is frequently more potent than individual citizen calls.
Yet, population loss has been considerable. Too often, drawing ward boundaries has meant dividing neighborhoods. If the number of aldermen were halved, this division could be tempered with entire neighborhoods included in one ward.
The board currently has a clerk, a part-time counsel and a handful of secretaries. If the board membership were halved, there could be ample funds for a few legislative assistants who could perform research and draft legislation. Creating law might begin to equal constituent service in emphasis.
Changing the number of aldermen also changes the number of ward organizations. Over the past decades, the role of such organizations has atrophied. Aside from the county offices, there are fewer patronage appointments for committeemen and women to oversee. Ward precinct captains no longer identify loyal voters nor do much to actually get out the vote. The effectiveness of ward endorsements on vote totals are open to question in an era of direct mail and other media contact.
Reduction of elected officials by 14 could demonstrate that sheer numbers of officials do not necessarily provide the best representation. This reform begins to open the door to other possible changes.
The 1876 divorce from the county created 11 county offices. Court reform in Missouri in 1978 reduced that number to eight and also eliminated elected magistrates and constables. These changes did not result from a city-based initiative.
In 2002, state voters gave city residents control over their county officials. So far, nothing has resulted. The 2004 charter changes met with ignominious defeat after opposition from many officeholders and very little support in poorer parts of the city.
A successful vote on aldermanic reduction could lead to further votes on the county offices, on the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, on mayoral powers. There has to be a wedge opening the door for action. If voters begin to sanction reform, more could be possible. The parameters have to be adjusted so acceptable behavior can adjust as well.
Reduction in the size of the board is a first step and is meaningful as such. Those who sponsored this legislation delayed its effect so that present aldermen did not vote because of self-protection alone. They could be beginning a path toward more effective governance.
The voters will decide but it would be a shame for people to speak of its defeat because it isn’t substantial enough. You have to start someplace.