Government: A Citizen Voices Issue Framework

The main reason city services and leadership so often disappoint, proponents of this choice believe, is that the citizen-government partnership has broken down. The fault lies with both sides of the partnership, this view argues. Citizens have grown more apathetic and negative, unwilling to put in the effort to push for solutions. This has allowed the political establishment to look out mostly for its own interests, and those of its powerful friends. This money- and clout-driven politics in turn discourages citizens who try to get involved, reinforcing apathy.

The cure, in this view, is neither the apolitical approach favored by Choice One nor the privatizing favored by Choice Three. The solution is better government through better politics.

Citizens, in this view, need to be more than just consumers of government services. They must be active partners in government. They must agitate for a political system that will be responsive to their concerns. Then they must make sure this reformed political system produces leaders willing to work with the public on citizen-driven solutions.

• Reform campaign finance in city politics to reduce the influence of special interests and people from outside the city on city elections.

• Increase the number of district seats on City Council, to enhance neighborhoods’ voice.

• Improve civics education in schools and demand better election coverage from the media.

• Allow for initiative and referendum on city issues.

• Make it easier to vote e.g. Election Day registration.

• Increase citizen involvement in city’s strategic planning.

• Make sure city boards reflect ethnic composition of city.

• Set up neighborhood City Halls to offer convenient services, mobilize community resources and serve as listening posts for citizen concerns.

• Force city bureaucracy to work with, rather than against, community agencies that address neighborhood problems e.g. community development corporations.

• Hold City Council members accountable at the polls for the quality of city services in their districts.

• Revise the City Charter to give the mayor and his department heads more latitude to appoint key managers, then hold the mayor accountable for how those managers perform.

• Maintain residency rules for city workers. Give preference on key policy and management jobs to people who know the city and have demonstrated civic commitment.

• By getting involved, citizens can make City Hall more attuned to their needs and more responsive.

• The ballot box is the only way citizens have to hold people accountable for the quality of services. And if the mayor and Council members are to be accountable for services, they must have more direct say in how they are administered.

• The people who run and work for city government should live in the city, so they feel the impact of the decisions they make. And as public servants, they shouldn’t expect to be paid corporate-style salaries.

• City Hall could get far more bang for its tax buck by tapping into the energy and insights of its citizens and civic groups, instead of ignoring or thwarting them.

• Political action is the best way for minorities and the poor to get their fair share of the pie.

• Political influence over delivery of services breeds waste and corruption.

• Political leadership consists of making hard choices among citizen demands, not caving in to all of them.

• To solve problems most effectively, citizens should direct their energies to volunteerism and free enterprise, not partisan politics.

• Campaign finance reforms never work; the special interests always figure out how to exploit them. Citizens lack the time to play watchdog over politics.

• Citizens lack the knowledge and realism to direct city policy; it’s a job for experienced leaders and experts.

• This approach is too parochial; citizen energy would be better spent lobbying Harrisburg and Washington to treat America’s cities more fairly.