October 31, 2002
The logic of Buffalo's at-large Common Council seats
by Bruce Jackson
Government in America is in a constant state of reform. That ongoing process of defining, refining, reviewing, revising and tuning is one of the reasons this republic, a continent wide, has survived. It is one of the reasons our cities have been able to cope with radical social, economic and technological changes. The most destructive kind of government is government that will not change, government that tries to force the people to adjust to it instead of it adjusting to the people.
That is the logic informing the current war over the size and constitution of Buffalo's Common Council. These are not only reasonable but necessary battles if cities like Buffalo are to survive, let alone prevail.
The question is always what change to make, not whether change shall occur. Change will occur, one way or another. But all change is not created equal. The wrong change can do more harm than doing nothing at all.
Removing all four at-large seats in the Buffalo Common Council is the wrong change. Abolishing those four seats is not simply an economic measure. It is a significant restructuring of the way government works in the city of Buffalo. All arguments that focus only on the possible dollar-savings to be achieved by abolishing all four at-large seats oversimplify and mislead.
Some history. By the end of the first quarter of 20th century government in Buffalo was a mess. Half the people in government, it seemed, was cutting deals and the only people not in on the profits were the ordinary citizens of Buffalo. When things got too awful, the city established the Kenefick Commission to figure out a way to get the various parts of the city's government to behave decently. The problem, the Commission decided, was that the city's system of checks and balances didn't work, so dysfunctional behaviors went unchecked and the whole system was sorely out of balance.
Just about all levels of government in the United States operate with some system of checks and balances. The Federal system has three equal components—legislative, executive, judiciary—each of which has a certain authority to influence or limit the behavior of the others. The Founders' decided that only a strong system of checks and balances could keep any one of the components from running amok and dragging the entire system down.
They weren't perfectionist fools. They knew that the quality or dedication of the people occupying those three realms might vary—sometimes the presidency or the courts or the legislature might be populated by men and women of great ability, sometimes they might be populated by incompetents and scoundrels. The task was to design a system that would transcend, or at least let the political system get through such times, such officeholders. The task was to create a system that was in itself stronger and more responsible than any of the individuals holding office within it. The country could survive incompetence and malfeasance, the Founders reasoned, so long as there was a system that the people could repopulate with officeholders who would do what they ought to be doing.
Which is what the Kenefick Commission concluded about Buffalo. They added a new element: at-large members, individuals who would be elected to the city's legislative body by the entire city. One of those at-large members would be the Council President. Their idea was that the at-large members would not be subject to the parochial demands of a district council seat. There wouldn't be enough at-large members to dominate the Council, but their presence would ensure a voice not susceptible to the kind of pressure a mayor can easily apply.
A member who represents a district has a responsibility to serve the people in that district, and is therefore in a difficult position if a mayor says,"You want that playground for the kids, then you vote my way on this bill turning that office building into parking lots." That leverage doesn't work on a council member who isn't responsible for bringing home playgrounds.
The Council President's job was particularly important in the Kenefick reconfiguration of Buffalo's government because the Council President would be a continuing position representing a city-wide constituency that could at least partially balance the mayor's position. At best, the two would work together and potentiate one another's offices; at least one could put a partial check on excesses by the other; at worst, both would be equally corrupt. So far as I know, only the third of those conditions has never happened in Buffalo.
Proposition One abolishes the position of Common Council President and the other three at-large seats. It thereby destroys any strong voice in city government other than the mayor's. The comptroller can check on improper spending of city money, but not on bad policy or harmful cronyism. Only the independently-elected Common Council President can do that.
Does the system work perfectly? Of course not. But we should differentiate a faulty system and human imperfection. If the system is faulty, then the system should of course be changed; if individuals aren't doing the job correctly, then we should elect other individuals who will. It's madness to mutilate the system because of dissatisfaction with an individual who is only a temporary occupant of an office. That's like demolishing a house because it needs new plumbing or paint.
Is there a viable alternative, some way to achieve economies in the Council without destroying the checks and balances the Kenefick Commission created 75 years ago?
Sure there is. The Citizens' Reapportionment Commission appointed by the Common Council and the mayor came up with a plan that would reduce the Council to eleven members by eliminating the city's most gerrymandered district and one of the at-large seats. The people of Buffalo were denied an opportunity to vote on that proposal because seven white members of the Common Council caucused and came up with an alternative plan that they rammed through.
Proposition One serves the interests of a small number of developers and corporations and politicians. It does not serve the people of Buffalo. It should be defeated at the polls and the people should be allowed to vote on the far more rational and fair plan developed by the Citizens' Reapportionment Commission.