Editorial Comment

Special District Government: A New “Dark Continent”?

doption of new spending and taxing limitations on municipalities has A had the unanticipated consequence of contributing to the creation of more units of local government. The result has been a decrease in ac- countability. The proliferation of special purpose districts during the last five years has occurred because general purpose local government did not or could not perform services which citizens demand. Paradoxically, one of the reasons has been the new limitations forced local on govern- ment by citizens.

The census bureau has just reported the latest enumeration of local governmental units-3,041 counties, 19,083 municipalities, 16,748 town- ships; 15,032 independent school districts. Only the number of special districts has increased significantly since the last count in 1977; it is up 11 percent to 28,733. Even more striking is the increase in spending, $9 billion in 1977, almost $25 billion in 1980 and still growing. A large percentage of special district revenue is from user fees not included in the tax levy. A systematic review of the situation is needed.

John C. Bollens of the University of California at Los Angeles warns that special districts represent a “new dark continent” of American govern- ment. “They are a strange breed,” he says. “Some of them serve very useful purposes. But many of them are not accountable. Even when their officials are elected, the candidates usually have no opposition. They are shadow governments.”

There are circumstances in which special districts are appropriate mechanisms for providing services jointly for several municipal jurisdic- tions and thus constitute a more effective approach to service delivery. Sometimes where limited services are needed in a growing area a special district is a useful interim arrangement prior to the establishment of a full- service municipal government. In other circumstances, residents of an area may want to provide an added service and create a special district for that purpose. But the rapid recent growth in the number of special districts also reflects efforts to circumvent tax, debt and spending limits in municipalities. Unquestionably, this further fragments and complicates lo- cal government, and whenever a particular service comes under special district jurisdiction it is removed from the process whereby general purpose

397

398 I NATIONAL CIVIC REVIEW

governing bodies evaluate service needs and assign priorities. At a time when citizens are unusually tax conscious and have suc-

ceeded in placing tax and expenditure caps on general government, they still demand services. They complain about taxes imposed by cities and counties but are willing to pay service charges or special levies to districts providing basic services-fire protection, parks, health care, libraries, wa- ter and sewage disposal. When special districts are subordinate to general government, and thus reflect differentiated service levels within a single jurisdiction, elected city council members or county commissions can still be held accountable, but the special districts reported by the census are actually separate governments, and how they are to be held accountable is another story.

We are alarmed by the low voter turnout in all elections, but despite the calls for keeping government close to the people the lowest turnout is in the election of low-visibility trustees or commissioners of special districts. These fragments of the total governmental picture are often the most unaccountable. Few citizens know who is in charge. Complaints about deficiencies in special district service are likely to be lodged with city hall. When the response is that it has no responsibility for that special district service, the citizens accuse city hall of buck passing. Public confidence is further eroded. Ardent advocates are pleased to remove their pet services from the budgetary process of general government and maintain it in iso- lation-take the service “out of politics” they say. Actually, doing this is nothing new and it has been reinforced by intensified special interest poli- tics and encouraged when by doing so tax and expenditure limits can be circumvented. When city and county officials have promoted this they have become participants in the fragmentation process. In the multi-level American governmental system, the role of the citizen

is always an exacting one. Holding elected officials accountable for partic- ular services is confusing at best. When local government has the overlay of special districts, confusion is compounded. Once established, these units can become an almost anonymous part of the political system with self-perpetuating bodies. For whatever reason these units exist they should be in the “sunshine.” If they perform well and responsibly this should be known, but if not they should be subject to public scrutiny and those that do not should be modified or abolished. Unfortunately, too often the record of performance is unclear, in some cases deliberately so. It is also most important to monitor the creation of new special units, to be sure they are needed as an alternative to general government. If they are simply a subterfuge to get around legal limits, something is amiss. In such cases the limits may well be a disservice to accountable government. Rather than circumventing limits, an honest appraisal of them is in order.

September 1902