In July 2014, the Gloversville Common Council approved a resolution that would have created a referendum item for the citizens to determine if Gloversville would govern itself in the council-manager style, rather than the current strong mayor style. Unhappy with that decision, Mayor Dayton King put forward a separate resolution that, if passed, would have resulted in a referendum to elect council members in city-wide elections, rather than through the ward system as is currently done.
In August, through a game of mutual annihilation, the Mayor vetoed the council’s ‘council-manager’ resolution, and worked with certain members of the Common Council who agreed to cast votes in favor of overriding the Mayor’s veto only if the Mayor’s proposal for ‘at-large’ elections was approved for referendum. Knowing full well the majority of the council would not vote to approve his resolution, Mayor King set the stage for all proposals to be defeated, continuing the status quo for at least another year.
Mayor King deserves credit for a masterful stroke of political theater through such a bold maneuver; but the question still remains, “Did the voters just lose out?” It is one thing to show one’s growing legislative talent through intriguing political maneuvering. It is quite another thing entirely if that maneuvering sets back the clock on Gloversville moving forward.
Both at-large elections and the council-manager form of government were products of the progressive movement at the turn of the 20th century. While both concepts were designed as solutions to local government corruption and patronage, how they were used in the years following their creation was anything but equal. Where the council-manager government form blossomed as a solution to patronage – the giving of government jobs on the basis of one’s relationship to a politician, rather than one’s qualification for the job – and in its ability to reduce issues such as bribery, graft and other forms of corruption, the at-large election process became closely associated with the disenfranchisement of minorities.
Significant research has been done on this topic over decades with essentially the same conclusions. For example, Davidson and Korbel, writing in the Cambridge University Press Journal of Politics (1981) state that, “An examination of the history of reform during the Progressive Era demonstrates that many reformers, recruited from the business classes, introduced at-large elections to wrest control of municipalities from the laboring classes and ethnic minorities. Research on the use of at-large elections since the 1920s indicates that they continued to be introduced or maintained as barriers to minority office holding…”[1] Twenty-three years later, while studying Latino ethnic office holders, Leal, Martinez-Ebers and Meier, writing in the Southern Political Science Association Journal of Politics, noted that, “Our study supports the findings of earlier research showing minority population translating into minority school board seats at a substantially higher rate with ward elections than with at-large elections. Our findings show that at-large election systems usually disadvantage Latinos; the obvious policy recommendation is that at-large systems should be replaced by single-member systems.”[2] Three years after that, Spence and Margolis, writing in National Review (2007) , state that at-large elections were,”...supposed to encourage elected officials to focus their concerns on the larger community rather than a small district,”[3] but actually, “…came to be seen as supportive of a political status quo that discouraged representation of minority and ethnic interests.”[4]
In Gloversville’s case, this is particularly interesting. Of the three council members who joined forces with Mayor King in executing this political maneuver, James Robinson, the Councilman-at-Large / Deputy Mayor is himself a minority (African-American), Art Simonds, Councilman of Ward 2, represents many of the poorest and least enfranchised voters in the city, and Stephen Mahoney, Councilman of Ward 3, represents a party that has been a political minority in Gloversville for over 100 years (Democrats), and also represents some areas with significant poverty. These three are, or represent, a clientele who would be most likely to be affected by a change to an at-large system. I can only justify their complicity in supporting the Mayor in this effort as an ignorance of history.
By contrast, the council-manager government form has a generally good record. A very recent study completed by Hsieh, Jun Yi and Fu, Kai-Jo, April 2014, “...indicates that the council-manager cities...spent significantly less than mayor-council ones...on the price of municipal governance.... It seemingly tends to run its government at a lower price for council-manager cities than mayor-council cities. On average, mayor-council cities adopt less citizen-oriented reform than council-manager ones....”[5] There is also indication, “that cities with council-manager form...were significantly more likely than those with mayor-council cities...to innovate their quasi-market service delivery mechanisms.... As well, the mean of adopting budget reform for the council-manager municipalities...was significantly higher than those with mayor-council manager....”[6] Greater innovation and lower cost, then, seem to be the hallmark of council-manager government in one of the most recent studies to date. Isn't that what Gloversville's citizens have repeatedly said they want?
One of the ways a city gets to the point of providing services that the people want at a reasonable price is by the adoption of a plan. Gloversville has had several such plans, but just puts them on a shelf and ignores them. This is in keeping with the findings of Feiock, Jeong and Kim (2003) wherein they conclude, “The presence of a strategic plan had no effect under mayor-council government, but it influenced several development strategies under council-manager government. The influence of strategic planning on development was in different directions depending on the particular strategy. Strategic plans led to less use of financial incentives, but greater use of loan and business-attraction strategies in council-manager cities. This discriminating effect is consistent with the goals of strategic planning.”[7] So it would seem the council-manager government system is consistent with strategic planning strategies, whereas the mayor-council system is not. This appears to be fairly self-evident in Gloversville today.
Svarra and Nelson (2008) reach much the same conclusion when they wrote on the 100 year anniversary of the creation of the council-manager system of government that, “The council-manager form does not automatically produce good government without the appropriate contributions of elected and administration officials. If, however, one is choosing the form of government most likely to produce sound long-term governance; effective implementation and service delivery; capable management; and transparent, ethically grounded, and citizen-oriented processes, the council-manager form is the preferred choice based on its essential structural features.”[8]
It would seem, then, that Gloversville – we, the citizens – were the biggest losers in this latest round of political football. Despite studies that indicate, “Republican ideology had a positive effect on the likelihood of council-manager plan adoption and a negative effect on its abandonment,”[9] Gloversville's Republican mayor, working with two predominantly Republican council members, managed to block this important change to our governance, and actively attempted a plan that would hurt minority groups in this city. That the net effect of their actions is that nothing happened should be less important than that they were willing to head down this road at all. One can only hope the citizens of our fair city will wake up and truly understand what is happening in City Hall before its too late. Your interests are not being served.
Article by Lance Gundersen Sr., Former 2nd Ward Councilman
[1] Davidson, C. & Korbel, G. (2007). At-Large Elections and Minority Group Representation: A Re-Examination of Historical and Contemporary Evidence. Cambridge University Press, Journal of Politics. Found at: http://wp.me/a2W4rB-7K
[2] Leal et al.(2004). The Politics of Latino Educations: The Biases of At-Large Elections. The Journal of Politics, Vol 66, No. 4. November 2004. Pp 1224-1244. Found at: http://wp.me/a2W4rB-7O
[3] Spence, J. $ Margolis, M. (2007). Rationalizations and Repercussions: Evaluating a Hybrid At-Large and Ward Electoral System. National Civic Review. Found at: http://wp.me/a2W4rB-7N
[5] Hsieh, Jun Yi & Fu, Kai-Jo. (2014). Testing Municipal Reinvention on the Price of Municipal Governance between US Mayor-Council and Council-Manager City. Institute for Local Self-Government and Public Procurement Maribor. Maribor, Slovenia. Found at: http://library.esc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.library.esc.edu/docview/1519495344?accountid=8067
[7] Feiock, R. et al. (2003). Credible Commitment and Council-Manager Government: Implications for Policy Instrument Choices. Public Administration Review, Vol 63, No. 5. September/October 2003.
[8] Svara, J. & Nelson, K. (2008). Taking Stock of the Council-Manager Form at 100. Public Management (00333611), Vol. 90 Issue 7, pp-6-14.
[9] Choi, C. & Feiock, R. (2013). The Adoption and Abandonment of Council-Manager Government. Public Administration Review. pp-1
View Printer Friendly Version
A Tale of Two Referendums
In July 2014, the Gloversville Common Council approved a resolution that would have created a referendum item for the citizens to determine if Gloversville would govern itself in the council-manager style, rather than the current strong mayor style. Unhappy with that decision, Mayor Dayton King put forward a separate resolution that, if passed, would have resulted in a referendum to elect council members in city-wide elections, rather than through the ward system as is currently done.
In August, through a game of mutual annihilation, the Mayor vetoed the council’s ‘council-manager’ resolution, and worked with certain members of the Common Council who agreed to cast votes in favor of overriding the Mayor’s veto only if the Mayor’s proposal for ‘at-large’ elections was approved for referendum. Knowing full well the majority of the council would not vote to approve his resolution, Mayor King set the stage for all proposals to be defeated, continuing the status quo for at least another year.
Mayor King deserves credit for a masterful stroke of political theater through such a bold maneuver; but the question still remains, “Did the voters just lose out?” It is one thing to show one’s growing legislative talent through intriguing political maneuvering. It is quite another thing entirely if that maneuvering sets back the clock on Gloversville moving forward.
Both at-large elections and the council-manager form of government were products of the progressive movement at the turn of the 20th century. While both concepts were designed as solutions to local government corruption and patronage, how they were used in the years following their creation was anything but equal. Where the council-manager government form blossomed as a solution to patronage – the giving of government jobs on the basis of one’s relationship to a politician, rather than one’s qualification for the job – and in its ability to reduce issues such as bribery, graft and other forms of corruption, the at-large election process became closely associated with the disenfranchisement of minorities.
Significant research has been done on this topic over decades with essentially the same conclusions. For example, Davidson and Korbel, writing in the Cambridge University Press Journal of Politics (1981) state that, “An examination of the history of reform during the Progressive Era demonstrates that many reformers, recruited from the business classes, introduced at-large elections to wrest control of municipalities from the laboring classes and ethnic minorities. Research on the use of at-large elections since the 1920s indicates that they continued to be introduced or maintained as barriers to minority office holding…”[1] Twenty-three years later, while studying Latino ethnic office holders, Leal, Martinez-Ebers and Meier, writing in the Southern Political Science Association Journal of Politics, noted that, “Our study supports the findings of earlier research showing minority population translating into minority school board seats at a substantially higher rate with ward elections than with at-large elections. Our findings show that at-large election systems usually disadvantage Latinos; the obvious policy recommendation is that at-large systems should be replaced by single-member systems.”[2] Three years after that, Spence and Margolis, writing in National Review (2007) , state that at-large elections were,”...supposed to encourage elected officials to focus their concerns on the larger community rather than a small district,”[3] but actually, “…came to be seen as supportive of a political status quo that discouraged representation of minority and ethnic interests.”[4]
In Gloversville’s case, this is particularly interesting. Of the three council members who joined forces with Mayor King in executing this political maneuver, James Robinson, the Councilman-at-Large / Deputy Mayor is himself a minority (African-American), Art Simonds, Councilman of Ward 2, represents many of the poorest and least enfranchised voters in the city, and Stephen Mahoney, Councilman of Ward 3, represents a party that has been a political minority in Gloversville for over 100 years (Democrats), and also represents some areas with significant poverty. These three are, or represent, a clientele who would be most likely to be affected by a change to an at-large system. I can only justify their complicity in supporting the Mayor in this effort as an ignorance of history.
By contrast, the council-manager government form has a generally good record. A very recent study completed by Hsieh, Jun Yi and Fu, Kai-Jo, April 2014, “...indicates that the council-manager cities...spent significantly less than mayor-council ones...on the price of municipal governance.... It seemingly tends to run its government at a lower price for council-manager cities than mayor-council cities. On average, mayor-council cities adopt less citizen-oriented reform than council-manager ones....”[5] There is also indication, “that cities with council-manager form...were significantly more likely than those with mayor-council cities...to innovate their quasi-market service delivery mechanisms.... As well, the mean of adopting budget reform for the council-manager municipalities...was significantly higher than those with mayor-council manager....”[6] Greater innovation and lower cost, then, seem to be the hallmark of council-manager government in one of the most recent studies to date. Isn't that what Gloversville's citizens have repeatedly said they want?
One of the ways a city gets to the point of providing services that the people want at a reasonable price is by the adoption of a plan. Gloversville has had several such plans, but just puts them on a shelf and ignores them. This is in keeping with the findings of Feiock, Jeong and Kim (2003) wherein they conclude, “The presence of a strategic plan had no effect under mayor-council government, but it influenced several development strategies under council-manager government. The influence of strategic planning on development was in different directions depending on the particular strategy. Strategic plans led to less use of financial incentives, but greater use of loan and business-attraction strategies in council-manager cities. This discriminating effect is consistent with the goals of strategic planning.”[7] So it would seem the council-manager government system is consistent with strategic planning strategies, whereas the mayor-council system is not. This appears to be fairly self-evident in Gloversville today.
Svarra and Nelson (2008) reach much the same conclusion when they wrote on the 100 year anniversary of the creation of the council-manager system of government that, “The council-manager form does not automatically produce good government without the appropriate contributions of elected and administration officials. If, however, one is choosing the form of government most likely to produce sound long-term governance; effective implementation and service delivery; capable management; and transparent, ethically grounded, and citizen-oriented processes, the council-manager form is the preferred choice based on its essential structural features.”[8]
It would seem, then, that Gloversville – we, the citizens – were the biggest losers in this latest round of political football. Despite studies that indicate, “Republican ideology had a positive effect on the likelihood of council-manager plan adoption and a negative effect on its abandonment,”[9] Gloversville's Republican mayor, working with two predominantly Republican council members, managed to block this important change to our governance, and actively attempted a plan that would hurt minority groups in this city. That the net effect of their actions is that nothing happened should be less important than that they were willing to head down this road at all. One can only hope the citizens of our fair city will wake up and truly understand what is happening in City Hall before its too late. Your interests are not being served.
Article by Lance Gundersen Sr., Former 2nd Ward Councilman
[1] Davidson, C. & Korbel, G. (2007). At-Large Elections and Minority Group Representation: A Re-Examination of Historical and Contemporary Evidence. Cambridge University Press, Journal of Politics. Found at: http://wp.me/a2W4rB-7K
[2] Leal et al.(2004). The Politics of Latino Educations: The Biases of At-Large Elections. The Journal of Politics, Vol 66, No. 4. November 2004. Pp 1224-1244. Found at: http://wp.me/a2W4rB-7O
[3] Spence, J. $ Margolis, M. (2007). Rationalizations and Repercussions: Evaluating a Hybrid At-Large and Ward Electoral System. National Civic Review. Found at: http://wp.me/a2W4rB-7N
[4] IBID
[5] Hsieh, Jun Yi & Fu, Kai-Jo. (2014). Testing Municipal Reinvention on the Price of Municipal Governance between US Mayor-Council and Council-Manager City. Institute for Local Self-Government and Public Procurement Maribor. Maribor, Slovenia. Found at: http://library.esc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.library.esc.edu/docview/1519495344?accountid=8067
[6] IBID
[7] Feiock, R. et al. (2003). Credible Commitment and Council-Manager Government: Implications for Policy Instrument Choices. Public Administration Review, Vol 63, No. 5. September/October 2003.
[8] Svara, J. & Nelson, K. (2008). Taking Stock of the Council-Manager Form at 100. Public Management (00333611), Vol. 90 Issue 7, pp-6-14.
[9] Choi, C. & Feiock, R. (2013). The Adoption and Abandonment of Council-Manager Government. Public Administration Review. pp-1