Last winter, I testified before the Montgomery County Charter Review Commission in opposition to a proposal to alter the structure of the County Council, changing it from a five-district, four at-large arrangement to a nine-district arrangement. The text of my presentation is below.
My main point might appear to be a very "inside baseball" argument, but it is one that I think makes expanding to nine district seats extremely unwise and potentially dangerous.
Background: The Ficker Amendment was a referendum-established amendment to the County Charter in 2008, which bans an increase in the property tax rate over the rate of inflation, unless the Council unanimously agrees to the increase. An emergency faced the County in 2016, and County Executive Leggett proposed a budget which required a greater-than-inflation-rate tax increase. It was a heavy lift, but eventually all nine members of the Council, including the five district members, agreed with the increase, with good results for the County. The debate centered entirely around the merits, and was not mired in parochial or partisan politics.
But with a nearly 100% increase in the number of districts, the likelihood that one member on the Council would be unconvinceable, thus thwarting the judgment of the representatives of an overwhelming majority of County voters, would increase significantly.
So moving to a nine district member Council, while attractive in some respects, could be fundamentally undemocratic in a fiscal emergency. Whatever the merits of a nine-district Council, I believe they are outweighed as long as the Ficker Amendment -- which allows a single Council member to block needed action -- is still on the books.
My main point might appear to be a very "inside baseball" argument, but it is one that I think makes expanding to nine district seats extremely unwise and potentially dangerous.
Background: The Ficker Amendment was a referendum-established amendment to the County Charter in 2008, which bans an increase in the property tax rate over the rate of inflation, unless the Council unanimously agrees to the increase. An emergency faced the County in 2016, and County Executive Leggett proposed a budget which required a greater-than-inflation-rate tax increase. It was a heavy lift, but eventually all nine members of the Council, including the five district members, agreed with the increase, with good results for the County. The debate centered entirely around the merits, and was not mired in parochial or partisan politics.
But with a nearly 100% increase in the number of districts, the likelihood that one member on the Council would be unconvinceable, thus thwarting the judgment of the representatives of an overwhelming majority of County voters, would increase significantly.
So moving to a nine district member Council, while attractive in some respects, could be fundamentally undemocratic in a fiscal emergency. Whatever the merits of a nine-district Council, I believe they are outweighed as long as the Ficker Amendment -- which allows a single Council member to block needed action -- is still on the books.
******************************************************************
February 22, 2020
To: County Charter Review Commission
From: David S. Fishback, Olney MD
Re: Proposal to alter the structure of the County Council
I have lived nearly my entire adult life in Montgomery County, and have lived in Olney since 1986.
I believe it would be a big mistake to move to a nine District Council, eliminating the At-Large seats.
The advantage of the current five District/four At-Large system is that it is more likely to reflect majority sentiment in the County. The four at-large members are responsible to the entire electorate; the five district members are responsible only to the people in their districts. The more districts and the fewer at-large districts, the more likely we could get a Council that would not reflect majority views on significant policy matters. I recognize that smaller districts might lead to more responsiveness with respect to constituent service and might yield a greater diversity of ideas in the course of Council deliberations. But for the reason explained below, I think that that argument is far outweighed by the impact of the current requirement of the “Ficker Amendment."
Under the "Ficker Amendment" to the Charter, property tax rates may not be increased beyond inflation unless the Council unanimously approves such an increase. Several years ago, County Executive Leggett correctly concluded that such an increase was absolutely necessary for the County to continue to be the kind of place we want to live in. After considerable discussion, the Council unanimously voted to approve the necessary tax package.
But if the Council had been splintered into nine districts, it would have been much more difficult, if not impossible, to secure that unanimity. With more, and smaller, districts, it would have been more likely that a single Council member would have vetoed the overwhelming majority of sentiment in the County.
A better case could be made for more, smaller district seats if the "Ficker Amendment" had not been passed. Indeed, one could make an argument that the Amendment it might not have passed if the Council structure had then consisted of nine smaller districts. But unless and until the "Ficker Amendment" is repealed, splintering the Council into smaller districts would be a ticking, fundamentally undemocratic time-bomb, which could result in tragic consequences for our community.
No comments:
Post a Comment