Every so often one of our public officials or a resident comes up with a really ridiculous proposal for one or another of our local governmental bodies. Which is why today’s post is about the letter to the editor [pdf] in this week’s Park Ridge Journal from Park Ridge resident Ken Balaskovits (“Time To Adopt Village Form Of Government,” March 17) in opposition to a possible citizens’ referendum to restore the Park Ridge City Council to 14 members.
Balaskovits not only opposes going back to 14 alderman from the 7 the City Council was reduced to in 2006, but he advocates changing Park Ridge from a city into a village, “with six to nine trustees, elected at large.”
That may be the most cockamamie idea about City government we’ve ever heard – even worse than former mayor Howard Frimark’s successful plan to cut the City Council in half, which we recall Balaskovits supporting. Nevertheless, Balaskovits is entitled to his own opinion, but he is not entitled to his own set of “facts.” And, frankly, his whole letter appears to be based on nothing but fiction.
Let’s start with his reference to the “study” he describes as having been done by “[t]wo aldermen” that he claims found only one other suburb (Elmhurst) with two aldermen per ward. Try as we might, we could not find any mention of such a “study” anywhere. We did, however, find a “study” by one former alderman – Jeannie Markech (2nd Ward) – in the 11/2/06 edition of something called the “Markech S’up Date,” which we understand she occasionally sent out during her brief term (2005-07) in office.
The relevant “S’Up Date” pages [pdf] tell quite a different story from Balaskovits’ tale, as Markech identifies 11 suburbs that elect two aldermen per ward.
Whether you choose to believe Balaskovits or Markech on this point is up to you, although we note that Markech’s “S’up Date” provides chapter and verse while Balaskovits’ letter is basically generalities and bare conclusions. But even if we judge Balaskovits’ arguments for turning Park Ridge from a city into a village just on their own merits, those arguments appear to be based on more false information and just flat-out wrong.
For example, he contends that an “at-large” election of City officials would be better than the current ward-by-ward elections because “[w]e just do not have a sufficient number of candidates who are able and willing to serve as aldermen” in each of the 7 wards. Once again, Balaskovits provides no data to support that contention, perhaps because the available data actually disproves that contention.
According to the Cook County Clerk’s election website, for election years 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2009, a total of 45 candidates ran for 25 City vacancies, with 39 of those candidates running for 21 aldermanic seats. Contrast that with the “at large” elections held for the Park Ridge Recreation and Park District Board and the District 64 School Board, where during that same period the Park District produced just 13 candidates for 11 vacancies while the School Board produced a mere 17 candidates for 15 vacancies.
That causes us to wonder whether Mr. Balaskovits is merely an incompetent researcher or someone who will outright lie to make his point?
As for his claim that “[t]he issues in Park Ridge are not all that different from ward to ward,” we suggest he try telling that to the flood-prone folks in those six designated areas of Park Ridge that the City’s flood consultant has deemed most in need of flood relief. Or to the people beefing about the airplane noise under the approach to new runway 9L27R. Or to the folks in the 1st and 2nd wards whose airplane noise has lessened since the new runway was opened. Or to the anti-billboard group in the Second Ward near the Tri-State.
Balaskovits fares no better when he delves into “policy” with his argument that “[t]he purpose of an election is to provide the citizen with choice so that we have a representative government.” No, Mr. B, the purpose of an election is to give the voters a means for conferring their governing authority on their chosen representative, thereby binding the social contract which John Locke described as “government with the consent of the governed” that the Founding Fathers adopted in our Constitution.
While contested elections give the voters the benefit of choice, an official elected in a contested race has no greater legal authority than one elected in an uncontested one. After all, it’s not the candidate’s fault if nobody else cares enough to run against him, is it?
We think Balaskovits also is all wet when he writes that turning Park Ridge into a village “would place us more in conformance with surrounding communities” – without identifying so much as one other community that he contends is better managed, or better governed, than Park Ridge. So why should we mindlessly mimic those communities, especially given the uniqueness of Park Ridge and the many differences between it and its neighboring communities?
But our personal favorite bit of Balaskovits silliness is his closing pitch for making Park Ridge a village: “It is a time for change but not for change that takes us backward but rather for one that deals with the realities of today and moves Park Ridge forward.”
Apparently Mr. Balaskovits doesn’t know that Park Ridge once was a village…prior to 1910.
Or maybe he’s just one of those “one step forward, 100 years back” kind of guys.
7 comments so far
I think the main issue for discussion here is whether the City wants to be represented by individuals in a ward system or an at-large system (The terms City versus Village have no bearing on anything and were used during incorparation back in the day).
I think this is a form over substance issue. If you have good elected officials – it doesn’t really matter what system you use. The only caveat is that a ward system leads to more NIMBY type attitudes as opposed to at large system where elected officals look at more issues from a global perspective.
In PR, I don’t think having 7 alderman, 14 alderman, 6 trustees makes much of a difference….at the end of the day, people can still make bad decisions or be poor representatives regardless of the system.
The one thing I have always liked about Pub dog is its ability to dig deeper and find the “out of the ordinary” to question. So why point out the obvious? Anyone who has ever been to a City Council meeting knows Ken Balaskovits just makes stuff up. This is like saying Mickey Mouse’s goofy is a little silly.
Anon 12:28,
There’s much fodder for debate in your comment.
The ward system may provide more NIMBY type attitudes, but that strikes me as a good thing since it’s very possible elections at large could produce trustees from say, just the 1st and 5th wards. Who will have a deep seated interest and personal interest on behalf of residents in some other area of the community if representation isn’t guaranteed to have a personal stake in that particular area?
Your claim that if you have good elected officials then which system you use doesn’t really matter (though you don’t offer any parameters of what may constitute [good elected officials]). That may be true. However, what you ignore is which system may be more likely to offer the better opportunity to have “good elected officials?” No small part of what makes for “good elected officials” is being held accountable for their consideration of issues and their final decisions.
There’s a very different dynamic at work when there are a larger number of people engaged in any debate with equal ability to vote on the outcome. Residents can show up to “lobby” the aldermen or trustees, but only the aldermen or trustees have an actual vote on an issue. Is it better to have fewer people (as few as four) determine outcomes for the whole town? Or would it be just a little bit better to have more (as many as eight) determine the outcomes for the whole town?
Is it better to be able to gain a majority on a legislative body in only one election cycle? Or is it better to have to endure two election cycles to reach such a goal? I guess the answer to those questions depends upon who you ask…
On the pending issue of supermajority votes to overturn denials by P&Z, the matter of whether or not PR is stuck with billboards for the next 20 years could be determined by as few as 5 votes, if Allegretti gets his way. The possibility of “punishing” Allegretti in the next election cycle by voting for an (maybe) opponent doesn’t un-do the damage of having to live with billboards for the next 20 years, nor the creepy factor in having the city actually engaged in some sort of business contract with some seriously creepy characters.
So suggesting the argument in merely form over substance ignores the potential substance the form can produce.
Mr. Macko:
The primary purpose of this post was to point out how converting Park Ridge from a city to a village is utter nonsense. The questioning of Mr. Balaskovits’ credibility resulted from our need to “call a spade a spade” when it comes to the fictional nature of the information he portrays as “fact.”
What anybody already knows or suspects about Mr. Balaskovits from having seen or heard him at City Council meetings, however, is of no concern to PublicWatchdog.
Anon 1:04,
Thanks for your response. A couple of further comments:
1. I agree that “at-large” elections very well could draw elected officials from only one particular area; however, in a ward system that elected official is only accountable to his ward and no one else. In an at-large system, you would be able to vote for all six trustees. In PR, based on the accounts from this website, there seems to be a general desire to replace most, if not all, of the alderman. Wouldn’t you prefer to have the ability to elect all of your elected officials? Not just one alderman and a mayor?
2. A “good” elected official is a very general and open term that can mean different things to different people…But regardless of your defintion of “good,” does the form of government really affect the substance. I would generally argue “no.” At the end of the day, I think a “good” elected official will be “good” regardless of the system — 4 versus 6 versus 8.
3. On the P & Z issue…a couple of comments: First, I agree Billboards are bad news and ripe with issues of corruption and overall are an eyesore; however, the issue here isn’t the form of the government, but rather the people in the chairs. You could have 14 “Allegrettis” and still have the same concerns RE: supermajority. Back to my earlier point, wouldn’t you prefer having the ability to elect all your legislators as opposed to just one?
I agree with you in that “No small part of what makes for “good elected officials” is being held accountable for their consideration of issues and their final decisions.” Why just elect one?
BTW, thanks for a good and insightful debate…it’s a good topic to discuss.
Great post(s)!! I wonder how many PR residents have had ANY experience, let alone a positive experience with their alderman. I wonder how many feel their alderman represents them. I wonder how many can name their alderman.
Anon 2:37,
You’re welcome.
In answer to your first set of questions, my answer is no. I’ll explain, beginning with holding elected officials accountable. All elected officials are accountable to the entire community, directly and indirectly, through (what should be) both election by voters and own honest conscience. I’ll understand any uproarious laughter on that last phrase.
However, one of the best ways (meaning, effective ways) elected officials are held accountable are by *other* elected officials. When the constituencies can only bring actual pressure to bear through election of only one of those elected officials, said official is more likely to represent the interests of strictly his constituency. Why should that matter? Because if one area of a community’s interest is in opposition to another area of a community’s interest (or alternately, not even personally interested at all) the elected official may be able to screw his immediate neighbors and count on the support of those further out; his accountability to his immediate neighbors is diluted. His area constituencies ability to hold him accountable through voting is diluted. An elected official may engage in “horse-trading” sorts of political practices (it happens!) because he is fully aware of the dilution effect.
Elections at-large actually serve to dilute the ability of voters (in any given area constituency) to hold elected officials as accountable as might otherwise be possible.
In response to your second statement, I would generally and specifically argue “you bet it does!” (Can’t bring myself to type “you betcha!”) The form of government provides for the process through which government functions and the people’s business is conducted. The more limits for voter/taxpayer effectiveness when voting, the more limits on what the form of government has the potential to provide, the more likely the substance/outcomes/representation will also be limited, less effective and lacking.
Your claim that a good elected official will be good regardless of the system – 4 versus 6 versus 8, could well be used as the foundation for arguing in favor of dictatorship. After all, a dictatorship sure would streamline govt. decision-making, no? None of that godawful “talking everything to death” debate some elected officials, like Allegretti, often spout. A form of government is never a problem when elected officials are “good”; however, what a given form of government can provide for (either in a limited way or more expansive way) is *protection* when elected officials are not good. That’s a fundamental principal of democracy; it’s a system of checks and balances/shared powers to guard against scoundrels (whether operating in lone dictatorial fashion or in small 4 – 6 or 8-man packs), and if the last two years haven’t provided evidence of that to all interested parties, I don’t know what will.
In addressing the comments and questions in your third point, I suppose anything is possible. The more relevant question is, “What’s more likely, given the form of government and number of representatives who vote to enact legislation?” It’s fairly easy to corrupt 1 to 4 individuals. It’s far more difficult to corrupt 8 to 10.
Finally, to directly answer your repeated questions in your third point, I welcome you to reread my first three paragraphs in this comment.
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>