”
We in America do not have government by the majority. We have
government by the majority who participate.
”
– Thomas Jefferson.
So far, this has not been a good week for participation.
At a sparsely attended public meeting Monday, a few residents
settled down to listen to details of the proposal to reorganize
Hollister politically. Reorganization politically has the potential
of being a significant happening, but it did not generate much
public interest.
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” – Thomas Jefferson.
So far, this has not been a good week for participation.
At a sparsely attended public meeting Monday, a few residents settled down to listen to details of the proposal to reorganize Hollister politically. Reorganization politically has the potential of being a significant happening, but it did not generate much public interest.
A group of citizens had recommended that Hollister change its political form. Currently, the city council has one member from the city’s five districts and one of these acts as mayor on a rotating basis. The change would reduce the city to four districts and add a full-time voting mayor elected at-large (meaning by the whole city). The idea is to provide continuity and one elected official who could speak for the entire community; it has some merit. This change would require voter approval. However, before implementation, the five districts would need to be redrawn into four as part of the ballot measure. It sounds simple.
One cannot draw district boundaries wherever they like. Redistricting for political advantage is called gerrymandering, a term named after Elbridge Gerry. When Gerry was governor of Massachusetts in 1812, he redistricted the state for political advantage. The shape of one district was so strange it looked like a salamander. Gerry’s opponents ridiculed the idea by calling it a “gerrymander.” Later that year Gerry became Vice President to James Madison; he died in office in 1814 but the term gerrymander stuck.
Since then there have been many laws and rules applied to redistricting. They are designed to ensure voting rights and equal representation. Decisions must be based the last census, which was in 2000. The significant requirements are that all districts must be approximately equal in population, the previous district majorities of certain protected groups must be maintained and districts cannot be cobbled together just to address race and ethnicity issues. Those requirements change the entire exercise.
What looked easy now becomes difficult. To do it we hired a professional demographer. Her preliminary findings were that with four districts based on the 2000 census redistricting might not be possible. She is trying some other ideas, but it doesn’t look good.
If we cannot find an acceptable solution, some of our options are to forget the idea altogether, wait until the 2010 census to see if anything changes, go to six districts and an at-large mayor or some combination of everything. All boring stuff until you consider the possible consequences; larger districts means more responsibility and more diverse interests for each councilmember and an at-large mayor will likely set the tone and direction for the entire city council.
If Monday’s redistricting meeting was sparse, Tuesday’s budget meeting was barren. I can understand it somewhat; the competition from the Baseball All-Star Game was tough. Still, I expected that at least those non-incumbents who will run for city council would be interested in the details of the budget they will inherit if elected; no such luck.
Unfortunately, neither the budget itself nor the presentation was easy to understand. If you did not have a copy in front of you along with the ever-preset verbal explanations of the city manager, it was almost impossible to follow. It should be child’s play to code out a set of standard remarks and annotate them to the specific budget lines where they apply. Unlike the members of the council, the public can’t keep asking, “Tell me again, where does the funding for this come from?”
The lack of a general presentation or slides showing where the money comes from and where it goes doesn’t help. For a better example, pie charts and all, I refer the council to Gilroy’s presentation. The public is at fault for not demanding information and the city is a fault for not presenting information in a useable form. There is an old joke that asks a citizen: “What do you think about ignorance and apathy about government?” His answer is: “I don’t know and I don’t give a darn.”
