In The Federalist No. 59, Alexander Hamilton asserted that “every government ought to contain in itself the means of its own preservation.”
Whether it ought to or not, every system seems to contain in itself, and anxiously embrace, that capability.
That’s certainly the case with the Columbia City Council, which voted last night not to allow the city’s residents to move to a more rational and accountable system of government, that is to say, a strong-mayor system.
At the risk of sounding like a believer in direct democracy, which I am not, allow me to remind one and all that this was not a vote on whether to institute a strong-mayor system, but merely whether to allow the people of the city to choose.
And the council said no. Perceiving a threat to their own power, the council members refused to allow even the possibility.
By doing so, the members in the majority demonstrated that they are not worthy to wield the power that they so jealously guard.
Related Posts
You know the vote that surprises me the most? Leona Plaugh’s. I really need to get with her and learn her thinking on this.
As I saw it, her own undoing as city manager was the very unworkability of this system. She seemed to me to be desperately trying to introduce some order, some accountability, some clarity of chain of command, into this bizarre situation in which she had seven equal bosses.
But perhaps I remember it wrongly. Or perhaps she just remembers it differently.
“The Columbia chapter of the NAACP’s executive committee voted unanimously against a change, a spokeswoman for the civil rights organization said.”
Maybe if Mayor Benjamin had been first to get to the laundromat, he would have got the support from the NAACP.
Instead, he took the right position — on that, and on this…
The message from Council is clear – we think we would lose power if the people were allowed to vote on this matter.
It will be interesting to watch them flip-flop once it does get on the ballot despite their votes yesterday.
Speaking of which — I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything in politics to match what Moe Baddourah did on this issue. He ran for office favoring a public vote on strong-mayor, and indicating that he was FOR strong mayor, then after the election came out against it even before his first meeting in office.
It was pretty stunning.
Somehow I have a hunch that Daniel Coble would have voted with the 3 turf-protectors.
What would the toe shoe guy have done?
The toe shoe guy?
I thought I remember that there was more of a fringe candidate in that race who favored said footwear. Or maybe an advisor to one of the candidates who appeared in one of your photos wearing toe shoes? It’s hazy now, at best.
Mark is referring to Mr. Walid Hakim, I think. Formerly a candidate for state house, maybe? And an organizer of Occupy Columbia. Wearer of kefiyas and Sketchers Skele-Toes footwear to Belinda’s house, as seen on Brad’s Blog:
https://bradwarthen.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/feet-gloves.jpg
Silence,
Thanks for the deep research. That’s the one. That’s the offender. Of course, I had the rest of the story all wrong. “Occupy Columbia” sure seems like a long time ago, doesn’t that impulse? I was going to say “what a bunch of numb-nuts”, but many of those involved in that nonsense probably still don’t see their choices that way – and that would include the people like Haley who gave the “movement” credibility by paying attention to it.
If people want to organize over an issue that will have a significant impact on this city and determine the direction of it’s future, they should get involved with this petition drive and put that sort of energy to productive use. Otherwise, we will be stuck with the Council’s Club for Sloth approach to single-issue pandering.
I still think that the strong mayor system would be a bad change for the city. I’m not saying that we don’t need change. There’s a lot of stuff that plain sucks here. I just don’t see this as a solution to any of our problems, and certainly not as a panacea.
Every system of government has its trade-offs. What the preponderance of evidence has shown is that Columbia’s Council Manager structure was better suited for another era and a smaller, less dynamic and more stratified populace.
Council-Managers work for towns, Mayors work for cities. Columbia’s real debate should be which one it wants to be? That’s the crux of it. Kathryn, and others, want to see the individual single issue activist hold sway over a horse-trading Council; Brad, and others, want to see a Mayor who must balance these with the vision of what the city as a whole could become.
The same people will always have a seat at the influence table; really the only question is how that influence must be marshaled and deployed. What we have now is messy, stagnant and quaint. What we could have is messy, dynamic and well travelled. The choice boils down to status quo vs. progress. Same as it ever was…
This year (so far) council, led by the strong enough mayor has been anything but stagnant.
They threw a bone to the preservation community with the PC warehouse purchase. ($6M plus and counting)
They screwed over their constituents with the Bull Street deal. ($60M?)
They are going to throw untold riches at another Big Rock Candy Mountain on the waterfront for the city’s homeless citizens. Or did they drink the Kool-Aid and just set up a homeless Jonestown colony with the Reverend Jim Jones? It’s one or the other, possibly both. ($500k+)
They continued to siphon off water/sewer revenue “profits” while getting ratepayers stuck with $1.5 M in fines/consent orders from the EPA. ($500M-$1B+ eventually)
They paid off the Mayor’s hand picked police chief to retire early.($30k)
They overpaid/overhired the mayor’s hand picked city manager ($200+k) who then appointed herself a one-woman police commission.(priceless)
They are in the process of getting us a baseball team ($5M-$20M)
So I’d say that they are currently being pretty dynamic and getting stuff done!
I can’t afford for them to be much more dynamic and productive.
Those aren’t dynamic or productive. A strong Mayor may have pushed through the Bull Street deal, but the others were exactly what one would expect of a Council system beholden to no one.
You cannot assign the sins of the current structure to your fears of the alternate arrangement. Those sins should be pinned right where they belong.
@Silence
The estimate for moving the big fire hydrant is now $850K… You can’t make this stuff up. There is a big problem with homeless people in Finlay Park. So the first thing you do is spend $850K to move a piece of “art” there… rather than, I don’t know, maybe helping the homeless.
No money for a bus system to help the disadvantaged or the homeless… but plenty to spend on old buildings and uber-fire hydrants. It’s always easier when you’re spending other people’s money.
My favorite part about The State article was where the reporter wrote that in 1975 when Home Rule was first “allowed” by the State Legislature, the city of Columbia choose the municipal option that most closely aligned with the old way of doing things when the real decisions were made by the legislative delegation. That is just so typical for SC. Do what they did before. Don’t progress, don’t improve – just relive what was again and again achieving no greater results.
The reality is that if one is not advancing, one is declining. We see that here. Four votes for continued decline.
All y’all who don’t live in the city limits can think what you like, but I don’t want a strong mayor. It favors big money over residents. It’s a lot easier to “buy” a mayor than a whole council.
I agree with Kathryn that we dont’ need a strong mayor. A strong mayor will simply inject more politics into the delivery of city services, and into the professional administration of the city. This would be really bad for the average, apolitical, Columbia resident and taxpayer.
Yeah, because having an administration that answers to no one is so great. Such as when the city manager acts irresponsibly, gets called on it by the mayor, and tells the mayor where he can stick it — with impunity.
When I was neighborhood association president, and someone in the neighborhood brought an issue to my attention, I would figure out which department at the city could handle the problem, bring it to their attention, and usually get it solved. Sometimes I wasn’t sure where it needed to go, and if that was the case, I worked through our district councilman to make contact with the appropriate city office.
Occasionally, an issue needed “more immediate” or “more personal” attention. In that case, an email from the councilman to the city manager, followed up by a forward from the city manager to the department head would usually do the trick. Of course this type of thing was done sparingly.
Devolution of government is a good thing, and having district councilmen/women ensures that they are truly responsive to the needs of their most local constituency. Frankly, we could get rid of the two at large seats and just have a 5 member council. Why does the mayor need to hear from me every time we can’t get a pothole filled or a stop sign replaced? Why does the mayor want to hear from me every time we need an ordinance changed or a building condemned? He doesn’t and shouldn’t.
So basically you want a Council-person to act as a staffer. To me, that’s the heart of the problem. To that Council-person then, these small (but vitally necessary) issues become more viscerally important than leadership of the city.
Not as a staffer, but more like an ombudsman and advocate sometimes. I also want them to be responsive to the needs of their constituents. I think a district councilor is more able to do this than a city-wide elected official. They have to look out for the overall needs of the city, yes, but they only have 30k constituents to answer to, instead of 120k constituents.
But Silence, someone has got to be responsive to all 120k residents, and the business community, as their primary responsibility. That’s what is missing. Columbia has seven ombudsmen overlooking a manager. Somebody has to be the designated leader of such a complex social/political structure.
Mark, the Mayor, and to some extent, the other two at-large councilors are already doing that.
As an ombudsman. That isn’t leadership – or responsibility.
They finally made a staffer ombudsman. Libby Gober first and now Charmaine Carr.
Right, which is why Leona Plaugh and Charlie Austin are still city manager….no accountability
I like accountability. I also like having a governance structure that loosely resembles Executive-Legislative-Judicial. Having a strong mayor would push the City of Columbia governance more toward that mold.
Well said, Bryan.
Isn’t it a sad commentary on politics when you have to decide which system of government will result in the least unethical behavior? The bar is set so low for them that we actually have to balance how much graft, nepotism, and kickbacks will be accumulated by the individual council members against that of a strong mayor.
A lot of people are trying to keep the discussion of the political options on the high road. The two issues – political structure and politicians as fallible humans – are totally different topics. It would be best if we discuss them separately; otherwise we always get side-lined from the overarching discussion of structural efficacy by the dastardly deeds of humans just like us.
There are ethical people in the world. And we should expect our elected representatives to be the most ethical people.
How many of the current council members would you hire if you could?
Hire for what?
Any position within your organization that required intelligence, ethical behavior, and a willingness to put their own personal benefit aside in favor of the company’s objectives.
Or how about this – say you inherited $1 million dollars. How many of the current council members would you allow to manage your investments?
Doug, that’s not a legitimate hypothetical. Only one of the members of council is in a financial business, and he’s a stockbroker, although he probably calls himself a “Financial Advisor” or something. One is a former city manager (not sure of her other quals) three are attorneys, so I definitely wouldn’t hire them for the gig, one is a restauranteur, and I have no earthly idea what the last one does even after reading his profile on the city’s website.
So you’re okay with them managing millions of tax dollars but not your own $1 million?
I didn’t say they would have to be financial advisors… would you trust them to HIRE someone to manage your $ 1million?
Would you give any of them power of attorney to (hypothetically) manage the affairs of your elderly parents? and to mentor your children?
Isn’t being a member of the council essentially that just on a larger scale?
The answer is two.
I might hire one council member at my law firm based on the criteria of “intelligence, ethical behavior, and a willingness to put their own personal benefit aside in favor of the company’s objectives”.
I would hire exactly zero to help manage my $1 Million dollars. They’d probably want to spend it on something stupid and unnecessary.
which one?
Probably Moe. I think he would actually be the hardest worker.
@Bryan
But think about how COOL it would be to have a 30 foot fire hydrant in your front yard! And you’d still have $150K left to buy that old shack down by the river.
Slow clap.
OK, so Sam Davis’ online city council profile says that he’s CEO of BEKOTU and Associates, Inc. LLC Doing a web search for this turns up only various versions with the same text. Searching for BEKOTU with the SC Secretary of State turns up exactly Nada, Zero, Zilch. So I put it to you, Brad’s best and brightest, to please enlighten me as to what BEKOTU and Associates, Inc. LLC does?
Inc., LLC? That’s a new one. Is that the corporate version of lawyering up?
My guess? Nothing. Although it is kind of interesting to have a public official purporting to conduct business as a corporation, or LLC – or maybe both(?) – which is not registered in the State of SC. If it’s a sole proprietorship, then it is neither an incorporated entity not a limited liability company. At the very least.
Nice find. I hope there isn’t more to this story.
I would hire any of them.
That might be going a bit far, Kathryn. Even for you.
They are sufficiently dedicated to stay until 3:30 AM, and sit through so many lethally dull meetings, endure abuse for a pittance of pay and but a soupçon of glory….
Makes one wonder why they would sign up to do it… Sorry, but civic duty doesn’t jump to the front of the list.
All you have to do is trace all the various benefits beyond the “pittance of pay” for each person to see why. Friends, family members, politically connected associates get special treatment. Tax dollars are traded for influence and quid pro quo benefits.
Doug, you may be on to something here….
Well, as someone who spends a great deal of time on city matters for no greater reward than knowing whom to call and having a city that works a bit better, I I have no problem understanding and admiring their diligence. I could not do it.
I’m with you Kathryn, I also spend a lot of time working to improve the city, and particularly my little corner of it. I am not sure that all of council is doing it for your altruistic reasons, though. Some of them are.
Well, if they are not totally altruistic, their rate of return has to be pretty low. You have to be a slumlord, say, to make much of a profit on your council time, and even then you’d have to deduct legal fees and prison time….
A better headline, based on my discussions with fellow residents would be “Columbia City Council Listens to Constituents, Does Not Schedule Costly Vote.”
And therein lies the single viewpoint that will forever retard SC’s progress.
What you appear to be saying is that you and your friends, neighbors and associates are unwilling to risk change and tacity desire the current system because it is best for you, individually and as a power block of influencers.
Why that troubles me is that, to me as an outsider, this is simply a local desplay of exactly the same impulses that support our legislative state. To voice opposition to our weak governorship, legislative meddling in home rule, unaccountable commissions, etc, etc and then advocate differently when an issue of change in the institution one is closet to comes to the fore smacks to me of not hypocrisy necessarily, but certainly some sort of endemic self-delusion.
We have a structural problem with the foundational impulses of our conception of government as both a protector of the status quo and a diffuser of both responsibility and accountability. What we have are the living vestigages of a slave-holding state. This model of government is the single largest problem facing the state. How can anyone expect progress when the institutional form of our government is the chief retarder and vessel of political corruption?