basics of the program

V Basics of the Program

SPECIALLY in 1970, a t a time when old values are being ques- ’ tioned and long-established truths are suspect, it is given to few people to be able to see beyond the turmoil of the moment and recognize enduring principles that remain sound generation after generation.

From the beginning, the National Municipal League has operated with the conviction that a self-governing system must have these basic conditions :

1. A system of elections that makes the business of voting easy, honest and effective.

2. Legislative bodies that fairly represent the voters and respond to real needs, not selfish pressures.

3. Responsible executives in charge of governments so organized as to be manageable.

4. Proper and visible controls over the raising and spending of public money.

5 . A system of intergovernmental relations that conserves local self- government but meets the needs of proliferating and expanding metropolitan areas.

6. Planning, both long-range and short, on which to base decisions. 7. Above all, an alert, informed, participating citizenry.

Throughout its three-quarters of a century as the central clearinghouse for citizens seeking to improve their governments, the League has worked constantly to forge handy, usable tools to enable good citizens to make these principles effective.

ELECTIONS The reformers at the turn of the century advocated nonpartisan local

elections because, as Professor Frank J. Goodnow expressed it, “City government must, to be efficient, be emancipated from the tyranny of the national and state political parties and from the legislature-the tool of the party.” Through its model laws and studies, the League has helped diminish spoils and endow American voters almost every- where with new freedom, effectiveness and confidence that their votes do, after all, count,

Permanent registration, prescribed in the ModeE Voter Registration 540

1969) THE INVOLVED CITIZEN 541

System, now in effect in most states, is designed to curb tombstone and other phantom voters by providing effective means of cleaning up registration lists. The Model Civilian Absentee Voting Law, the Model Election Administration System and the Model State Campaign Con- tributions and Expenditures Reporting Law, although still in tentative form, have been broadly influential in raising standards.

The proportional representation system of voting was prescribed in several editions of the Model City Charter. Due to its vulnerability to misrepresentation and the decline in its use by American cities, however, the current 1964 edition provides it only as one of several alternatives.

In the continuous process of reexamination of doctrines and posi- tions, the League currently is also questioning whether the at-large election of city councils, long supported as diminishing the mischief of petty ward bosses, is putting too much power in the hands of slate makers who might leave important segments of the population un- represented by persons of their own choice.

While favoring nonpartisan local elections as a way to achieve meaningful contests in place of one-party domination or bi-party con- spiracies, both of which tend to disfranchise minorities, the League has never advocated nonpartisan elections at the state level, I t might be well for some of the new rebels who glibly talk about “party responsibility” at all levels to reexamine the history that led to the demand for nonpartisan local elections and the many instances in which lead- ing citizens, unembarrassed by their differences of party affiliations, have been able to work together for the good of their communities. They might consider how likely a party as a party is to espouse a new constructive local program. Most major changes have come in the form of popular revolts against party establishments.

LEGISLATIVE BODIES Many years before the “one man, one vote” revolution began in

1962 to draw sympathetic attention to the distressingly low level in public esteem into which state legislatures had fallen, the League in the Model State Constitution and in numerous articles and studies had spelled out specific needed improvements.

Roger V. Shumate, a member of the Committee on State Govern- ment which drafted the fourth revision of the Model State Constitu- tion (1941), put it very well:

No student of modern American government and politics can be blind to the faults of our state legislatures, but to admit that they

542 NATIONAL CIVIC REVIEW [December

have failed comes perilously close to admitting that popular government in the United States has failed. That, in turn, would be to admit that what was once regarded in foreign lands as “the American experiment’’ has failed, and this we are not prepared to do.

If we will but free our legislatures from their constitutional hobbles, pay them decently, organize them so that they can serve adequately and create a vigilant public opinion which insists upon responsible service of a high caliber (these are not simple reforms, to be sure), there is no inherent reason why they cannot assume the rightful place of representative assemblies in a representative government.

THE GATHERING EVIDENCE Over the years, the League performed the lonely, seemingly thank-

less task of piling up a huge mass of proof that most state legislatures were unrepresentative and increasingly so. Articles, editoriak and research reports showed they were deliberately ignoring the change from a rural to a predominantly urban nation and that the lawmakers were flouting the mandate of their states’ constitutions to reapportion the seats after and in accord with each decennial census.

Typical was Guthrie Birkhead’s summary in the November 1952 NATIONAL MUNICIPAL REVIEW of current studies showing that “farm populations are over-represented and urban populations grossly under- represented in state legislatures.” This, Dr. Birkhead added, “is a fact of political life many people recognize but about which few ever do anything. Each decennial census revives the subject and produces a series of studies and essays, with some small effects in a state here and there. The basic condition, however, hangs on decade after decade.”

In its Mode2 State Constitution of 1920, while the pace of urbaniza- tion was still relatively moderate, the National Municipal League began expressing concern over the unrepresentativeness of state legislatures.

Major breaks began to emerge in 1955. The (Kestnbaum) Commis- sion on Intergovernmental Relations’ report in June stressed basic needs, including the reapportionment of state legislatures to make them more fairly representative of growing urban communities. The Eighth American Assembly on “The 48 States” declared that, “To restore the people’s confidence in state government, the revision of legislative apportionment in most states is imperative. . . . We support the goal of more representative legislatures.” Random House published Gordon

19691 THE INVOLVED CITIZEN 543

E. Baker’s Rural Versus Urban Politica2 Power. Manning J. Dauer and Robert G. Kelsay developed the Dauer-Kelsay scale for the ar- rangement of state legislatures in rank order from the most representative to least representative; that is, to show how many persons each legislator represents and what percentage of the voters was needed to control a house. This was published in the December issue of the NATIONAL MUNICIPAL REVIEW under the heading, “Unrepresentative States.”

THE FIRST COMPENDIUM The Dauer-Kelsay scale was used by the League to issue in 1959,

with the aid of the institutes of government in the various states, its first Compendium on Legislative Apportionment. When this was re- vised on the basis of the 1960 census and reissued in 1962, it disclosed:

I n only six states were both houses of the legislature apportioned so that at least 40 percent of the state’s population was needed to elect a majority of each.

Only 20 states had even one house for which it took at least 40 percent of the people to elect a legislative majority.

I n 13 states, one-third of the population or less could elect a majority of both houses.

This was the shocking situation when on March 26, 1962, the Su- preme Court issued the first of its “reapportionment revolution” decisions, Baker v. Caw, declaring reapportionment suits justiciable. Thus, the court abandoned the long-established theory that the sepa- ration of powers doctrine prohibited the judiciary from interfering. This blew a petrified situation wide open and, in the process, revealed the National Municipal League as the national clearinghouse of basic information on the problems.

THE CLEARINGHOUSE Lawyers, courts, civic groups and the mass media throughout the

country were referred to the League as the only source of dependable facts; and, incidentally, despite its long-established convictions, the League impartially served attorneys on both sides in the ensuing strug- gle. The League’s ruling interest was seeing the issue resolved sanely.

Two Ford Foundation grants totaling $75,000 helped the League serve the veritable avalanche of demands for service, followed in 1965 by a grant of $918,500 to finance the five-year State Legislatures Project.

This project involved: (1) analyses of the impact of reapportion-


ment in various states, conducted with the cooperation of state institutes of government; ( 2 ) the American Assembly on “State Legisla- tures in American Politics” in the spring of 1966 at Arden House, followed during the next two years by 14 regional and state Assemblies in which civic, business, education and political leaders sought ways to improve and strengthen legislatures; (3) publication of a monthly newsletter reporting specific achievements and ideas for upgrading of legislatures; (4) publications such as 32 volumes of significant court decisions and a popular pamphlet, Stag and Services for State LegisEa- tares; ( 5 ) a manual showing how to redistrict by computer.

The new and almost unprecedented condition of genuinely representative state legislatures is not necessarily going to bring a speedy solution of today’s urban crisis, however, for the greatest gains of seats in most legislatures have been in the suburbs, as the League long ago predicted, and the habitual suspicion and hostility of these satellite communities toward their central cities appear to stand in the way.

RESPONSIBLE EXECUTIVES Because of their limited or shared power to appoint department

heads, very few mayors or governors can be truly responsible executives. The League’s early recommendation of the “strong mayor” plan was less influential than the later prescription of the more dramatic council-manager form of government, the League’s best-known con- tribution to good government. Fear of the concentration of a great deal of responsibility in one executive, the city manager, seems to be dim- inished because he is a “controlled” executive; thus, what would be power in the hands of a difficult-to-remove elected mayor is no more than responsibility in the hands of a chief executive who can be readily removed.

The progress of the council-manager plan has often been used to measure the League’s effectiveness, for the manager plan embraces in a single package virtually all those devices generally recognized as essential to “good government.” Thus, instead of seeking a responsible executive, unification of powers, short ballot, annual budgets, merit system, the nonpartisan ballot, etc., the‘voters had but to say, “We want the council-manager plan.” Another advantage was that the name of this form of government had a selling appeal.

For half a century, those seeking to improve their local governments by the adoption of the council-manager plan have depended on the League for their basic materials. Virtually all local charter commissions have used the Model City Charter and correlative publications.


To meet the needs of the civic forces which campaign for this form of government, the League developed a variety of popular materials.

In 1969 there were 2,300 jurisdictions-villages, towns, cities and counties-in the United States and Canada which had the council- manager plan and the fact that more cities over 10,000 had it than any other made it the prevailing form in the United States.

Although, in common with authorities generally, the League has favored the council-manager form of government, it has never been doctrinaire about this or any other “cure.” It has, indeed, been con- spicuously and importantly helpful to commissions drafting mayor- administrator charters in, for example, Philadelphia, New Orleans and Newark, and elected executive charters such as those of Baltimore County, and the consolidated governments of Nashville-Davidson County and Jacksonville-Duval County.

Not only in the Model State Constitution but also in reports, books, studies and REVIEW articles, the League also has publicized sound administrative reorganization of state governments with emphasis on adequate powers for the governor. Regrettably, the numerous “Little Hoover Commissions” created after World War I1 produced only limited results because their recommendations for strengthening the governor were so often scuttled by stupid cries of “dictatorship” generally raised by selfish interests and not understood and supported by good citizens.

FISCAL CONTROLS A. E. Buck, the noted authority on public budgeting, has been quoted

as saying that, until the League suggested the now standard principles of budgeting, no city had what today would qualify as a budget. The cities spent in response to needs and pressures, then borrowed and taxed in unplanned circles. Today all cities are required to follow at least the minimum standards of the Mode2 Budget Law with the re- suIting elimination of vast waste.

In addition to the Model Budget Law, others in the series of model fiscal laws-Bond, Revenue Bond, Investment of State Funds and Real Property Tax: Collection (the last named described in Chapter 1V)-have set high and adaptable standards for husbanding and managing the people’s money.

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS With a 1925 grant from the Russell Sage Foundation, the League

undertook the pioneer study of what only a few had the vision to recog-


nize as metropolitan areas. Five years later, the report, entitled The Government of Metropolitan Areas, was published as a book, long since out of print but still remarkably foresighted. The report con- cluded: “The rapid growth of metropolitan regions has been one of the conspicuous political phenomena of the Twentieth Century. . . . The task confronting our urban populations is one of political reconstruc- tion calling for high statesmanship and sound political wisdom.”

Since then there have been many efforts, with few successes, to simplify the complex pattern of overlapping governments, thousands of which remain too small in population and resources to do their jobs properly.

The League’s Model County Charter and Model State and Regional PZanning Law have provided authoritative guidance for civic leaders who have sought more unified governments for their areas. Also important was the day-to-day consultation with League staff and consul- tants, for it has been the League’s position that there is not and cannot be a “model” metropolitan governmental structure, at least not until there has been much more experience.

There are differences of opinion concerning the compulsions that led to the city-county consolidations of Nashville and Davidson County, Jacksonville and Duval County, and Indianapolis and Marion County, the only genuine ones accomplished recently. And there is much watch- ful waiting and hope that one or more of these still relatively new ven- tures will be crowned with such success as to start a movement com- parable to the one which, in the brief period of 60 years, made the council-manager form of government the most popular for U. S . cities over 10,000 population.

A SENSIBLE BALANCE I n addition to the issuance of formal reports, studies and articles,

the League has worked directly and with others to bring a sensible balance in the governments making up the federal system. After the 1952 campaign, for instance, the League’s president suggested that President Eisenhower follow through on his proposal that the trend of power to Washington be counteracted. The Commission on Intergov- ernmental Relations invited the League to submit a memorandum, then borrowed the principal author of the statement, John E. Bebout, League assistant director. I ts finally-adopted policies were in general agree- ment with those expressed on the League’s behalf. These may be briefly summarized as follows :

Modernization of state constitutions with the elimination of


outmoded limitations and statutory details that often prevent or retard needed action at the state or local level.

Reapportionment of state legislatures so that they are more fairly representative of growing urban communities.

Reorganization of state administration “to provide the governor with the authority as well as with the title of chief executive.”

Greater use of interstate cooperation so as to “extend the scope of state action to more matters on which some degree of regional or even nation-wide uniformity is required.”

Continuing reorganization and strengthening of local government so that there may be “more local home rule for fewer and stronger local units.”

A searching reappraisal by each state “of its fiscal policies, including the constitutional and statutory limitations on its taxa- tion and borrowing activities, the limitations on the fiscal powers of local governments, the system of property tax administration, and the financial aids it is providing its subdivisions.”

A comprehensive attack on the metropolitan area problem. The report calls “for an extensive nation-wide study of governmental areas with special attention to metropolitan communities” and suggests that this study “should engage the cooperation of national, state and local governments as well as universities, private foun- dations and civic agencies.” The League has continued to work with the Advisory Commission

on Intergovernmental Relations and other organizations on these crucial problems.

THE WISHES OF THE VOTERS

When the League’s Municipal Program, forerunner of the Model City Charter, was being prepared 70 years ago, Horace E. Deming, New York attorney and civic leader, the chairman of the Committee on a Municipal Program, said:

No proposition for the improvement of city government in the United States is worth consideration that does not provide for the full, free and deliberate expression of the wishes of the voters and for the carrying of their wishes into effect. No scheme of city government will give promise of much improvement which will not develop an effective and general interest among the voters themselves in the actual conduct of the public affairs of the city. One of the problems which the proposed Municipal Program undertakes to solve is to provide a form of city government which will compel the development of this interest, and upon which the


public opinion of the voters, when deliberately expressed, will be effective. So for three-quarters of a century this has been the National

Municipal League’s philosophy and program: Develop practical ways to simplify public affairs so that the

citizen may be master of his task and master of his governments and will be inclined to do so.

In this sense, the League is and always has been an institution for adult education in civics.

League policies and programs have always been developed on the basis of the best thought of the foremost authorities and especially on the basis of successful experience. The model laws and systems are the formalized means of giving citizens sound programs which enable them to proceed with confidence to help themselves to better government.

basics of the program

Documents