Unintended Consequences

Board President Jim Shrewsbury wrote this to be distributed to the Stakeholder Assembly as they considered proposing changes to the Board of Aldermen and the way the Board President was chosen. I believe it was not ever distributed to them.

Aldermanic President
Citizen-Elected vs. Chosen by Aldermen
Unintended Consequences:

The architects of City government envisioned a system consisting of three “top” elected officials; the mayor, comptroller and aldermanic president. The rationale was that these three City officials would comprise the Board of Estimate and Apportionment. Since the Board of E & A is where monies would be allocated for neighborhoods and programs throughout the entire city, all three officials, therefore, needed to be elected at large and serve as representatives of no one particular constituency but rather speak for all the citizens of St. Louis with city-wide interests at heart.

Debate among the Stakeholders is questioning the effectiveness of having an Estimate Board and thinking has now shifted closer to a system where the Board of Aldermen and an elected auditor would serve as watchdogs on City spending. As a result, some Stakeholders no longer see the need for a citizen-elected aldermanic president and prefer the Board of Aldermen to select its own president.

Loss of City-Wide Vision
With or without a Board of E & A, the aldermanic president still serves on a number of boards and commissions addressing regional issues (the TIF Commission and the East-West Gateway Coordinating Council being two of them.) An aldermanic president who is accountable to his/her constituents from one particular ward of the city is likely to lose that “broad view” on the issues. What’s important to residents of North St. Louis, for example, may not weigh heavily on the president’s mind if he/she is concerned about running for re-election in a particular South St. Louis ward.

Minority Representation
At the start of this current session, African-Americans held 12 aldermanic seats and whites held 16. African-Americans have never held a majority of seats at the St. Louis Board of Aldermen. The last round of redistricting resulted in moving a strong African-American ward from North City to South City and many fear future redistricting will continue this trend. The selection of an aldermanic president by his/her peers (whether it’s 28 of them or 13 of them) basically becomes a “popularity contest.” The cliquish nature of politics combined with a majority of “white wards” seems to ensure that African-American aldermen will face an uphill battle before ever getting selected to serve as president.

Aldermanic Rules
Current law dictates the qualifications, length of term and duties of the aldermanic president. When the voters elect an aldermanic president they know that he/she will serve a four-year term, will meet certain criteria and will perform certain duties. The Board of Aldermen, however, operates from its own set of rules. The Rules of the Board of Aldermen are not dictated by any laws and voters do not have to approve changes to the Rules. Once the position of aldermanic president is taken out of the hands of the voters and put into the hands of the aldermen, the Rules will dictate who gets selected and who does not. Those rules can be changed at any time as long as any group of aldermen can muster enough support to make changes. This sets up a system where the Rules can be easily manipulated to favor one particular alderman over another. (The Board could change the Rules, for example, to say that only aldermen who drive a Chevrolet can serve as president.) It is not hard to imagine more realistic examples where the Rules are changed to ensure that only certain aldermen meet the qualifications to serve as president.

Line of Succession
Should the mayor need to vacate office, the aldermanic president is the City official designated to succeed. An aldermen-selected president creates a scenario where the new mayor of St. Louis would be someone who is in office based solely on the votes of one particular ward. St. Louis County is an example of where this has happened. Following the death of their county executive, the County’s 1st District councilman became county executive even though the majority of County residents never voted for him and may not even be aware of his positions on County-wide issues.

E & A vs. No E & A

The Board of Estimate and Apportionment was created as a check on the fiscal power of the mayor. Some Stakeholders prefer elimination of E & A in favor of increased oversight at the Board of Aldermen and an elected auditor. With a smaller Board of Aldermen, the mayor will need approval from a relatively small number of officials. For example, if a handful of aldermen happen to be political allies of the mayor, the Board of Aldermen becomes less of a “check on power” and more of a mere formality rubber stamping the mayor’s expenditures. The elected auditor becomes a “reactionary” position; investigating spending habits only after the fact whereas the Board of E & A serves a “proactive” role; researching and scrutinizing the spending before it happens. Throughout the Advance Saint Louis process, no examples have been cited where E & A blocked any major initiatives. Examples can be given, however, where the presence of an Estimate Board forced developers back to the table to negotiate a better and fairer deal for the City.