By Antonio D. French
Filed Sunday, April 2 at 9:06 AM
In many ways, the citizens of the City of St. Louis have less power than people living in many other cities. We don't have control of our police department. We don't have control of our election board. And we can't rely upon our public schools to give our young people even a 50-50 shot at graduating from high school.
But in one way, St. Louisans are very powerful. That is our ability to fire our elected officials at almost any time, for almost any reason.
Since St. Louis incorporated as a city in 1823, its citizens have only exercised that power a handful of times. But since 2003, City voters have recalled three different aldermen. The average percentage of people voting to fire those aldermen was 58%. And there are at least three ongoing efforts to fire more members of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen.
Some would simply write these off as political vendettas that have lasted long beyond Election Day. But consider this: More people voted in the last successful recall election than voted in the primary election that award the seat to the alderman in the first place. Something that alderman did (or did not do) woke people up in his ward. And they didn't like what they saw.
One of those ongoing recall efforts is in the 15th Ward. The alderman of that ward, Ald. Jennifer Florida, introduced a bill a few months ago to make it more difficult to recall elected officials. The Board of Aldermen passed that bill and on Tuesday the voters will be asked to amend the City' charter to make Florida's bill law.
Voters should reject Florida's attempt to take away power from the people of this city. St. Louis citizens have had this power since before the Civil War and should not be asked to give it up just because they are now using it.
Sure, there are some things that could be changed to allow for a more orderly process and some recommendations in Florida's bill are good ones. But to take away power without offering something in return is wrong and reveals the alderman's true intentions as nothing more than self-preservation.
If the Board of Aldermen would like to amend the charter to require the election board to develop a uniform recall petition and to notify the official that is the target of the recall effort, then maybe they could also amend it to prevent a recalled official from immediately running for the office again.
Most aldermen are in no danger of being recalled because they have built strong bases of support in their wards and they actively involve people in decision-making.
But in other wards, there is obviously a significant number of people who don't feel involved and who would like to make a point. Given no other way to effectively communicate their feelings to their elected official, they should have the right to ask their community if it isn't time to fire that official.
Time limits and other restrictions make it more difficult to put that question on the ballot. They chip away at powers we are lucky to have.
When elected officials do a good job of involving all parts of their electorate, they need not fear losing their jobs. But for those that don't, and choose to run their wards like small dictatorships, well... "When you gotta go, you gotta go."
5 Comments:
I will probably vote for the change because I think the process has been abused, but I think you have very thoughtful and thought provoking reasons to vote no.
1:48 PM, April 02, 2006
I will vote No for the Amendment because the people are being abused, But I think the previous poster has not thought about who realy has power in St. Louis.
4:33 PM, April 02, 2006
I will vote No on the Amendment because, regardless of whether some voters have abused this power in the past, it's an important right for people to be able to have immediate redress through recall against an elected official whose misfeasance cannot be tolerated.
8:20 AM, April 03, 2006
Funny how Jenny Florida proposed the bill right before backing a personally-lucrative development deal that her constituents hate.
She is living proof that those who pose as "young and progressive" are often worse than the old timers when it comes to corruption, arrogance and small-mindedness. This amendment makes her look really bad.
8:35 AM, April 03, 2006
Nice cross post on the Political-Fix. Your work is far better than the comments of folks like Jim the R and Michael
4:22 PM, April 03, 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home