Essay # 5

Stepping Up to The Plate

Streamlining local government will require consolidation and/or elimination of elected offices.  This cannot and will not occur without the cooperation and courage of our elected officials; more specifically the elected official(s) who serve(s) in an office slated for alteration, consolidation, or elimination. Which begs the question, why would any elected official vote to eliminate their office?

Most, if not all elected officials believe they’re doing a satisfactory if not excellent job discharging the duties of their office.  If our system of local government is broken, inefficient or expensive surely it can’t be attributed to the operation of their office.  So if everyone is doing such a great job then why are we being taxed more and more for less and less?

Regrettably, we don’t reward elected officials for saving money.  In a way, government spending is akin to the American family budget; the more money available, the more we spend, but rarely the reverse.   My buddy Bob refers to it as the “I need what I want” syndrome.  We rationalize our way straight to bankruptcy.

Many in our society have become addicted to government; demanding it provide more services, reconcile greater interests and increasingly confront challenges which exceed its design specifications.  We demand more, our elected officials deliver, eventually they send us the bill, and we revolt. They gave us what we asked for, didn’t they?  Perish the thought that an elected official would stand up and say “NO” while informing us taxpaying citizens that the services we’re demanding we can’t afford.  Or more appropriately, that the demands of a taxpayer or special interest is not the business of government. Saying no may represent a “career decision.”  And that’s the real problem.

In defiance of our forefathers’ design, we have unwittingly transformed elected office into gainful employment.  Elected officials are hesitant to say NO because if they did, it may cost them the job they now depend upon for food, shelter, clothing, transportation or health insurance.  Our demands of government have forced elected officials to put all else aside to serve us – including gainful employment.  Does the citizen-statesman still exist?

Ask yourself this question.  Honestly, how objective and how strict could you be if you were forced on a daily basis to consistently and impartially discipline those in your employ and yourself?  If elected office also serves as your gainful employment that’s exactly what’s being demanded of you. What if you employ your family, friends, relatives, neighbors or political colleagues to assist you in discharging the duties of your elected office; could you enforce, rule and regulate your office if it required dismissing them and endangering their livelihood?  How could you live with yourself?  It is perfectly understandable that elected officials would resist change while defending the status quo.  They have people to protect.  Ideally, the taxpaying citizen should always be first on the list, but my sense is that’s not possible in the present system.  How can one reconcile the competing demands of two masters; the job or the tax paying citizens?

As our expectations rise, we must be careful not to confuse activity for achievement.  Citizen satisfaction should be a product of what our elected officials DO, not what they SAY.  Our elected officials should have good character and solid credentials, but nothing replaces critical thinking, decisiveness, courage, and leadership.

Change is necessary and can only occur if we elect officials who are willing to eliminate the very office to which they were elected as necessary to assure efficient, effective, accountable, and sensible local government – consider that in the voting booth this November.  UNLESS -you’re content with your tax bill, fully understand what you’re paying for, satisfied with the service you’re receiving and convinced there’s no room for improvement.