Salust

8. Chapter - Representative Democracy

             Representative democracy purports to read the collective mind, and transform the popularwill into collective action. We believe ourselves 'free' because we believe, despitemounting evidence to the contrary, that representative democracy puts ordinarycitizens in charge. Congressmen claim that when they authorize bombers, and nerve gasor lease offshore lands for oil drilling, they do no more than further constituent desires.From the growing number of groups opposing government activities, it would appearrepresentative democracy's conclusions are increasingly suspect.
            Representativedemocracy is less than true democracy. Early New England towns were true democraciesuntil town halls could no longer accommodate all the eligible electors. When representativedemocracy became impractical, representative town meetings (R.T.M.) replaced town meetings.Small town representatives have fewer constituents and measure concerns in fewer dollarsthan state and federal counterparts, but the process is identical. I represented my districtin my town's R.T.M., and offer the experience as relevant to representative democracy generally.I ran as a democrat, but my activities interested neither party leaders nor constituents.In twelve years of public office, no one asked me for anything. The one time a referendummeasured my representative vote against the popular will, I was reversed.
            In Fairfield, Connecticut,where I live, a three member Board of Selectmen exercises executive power. The Board of Selectmanmakes spending recommendations to a Board of Finance which reviews the selectmen's recommendationsand makes recommendations to the R.T.M. The R.T.M., the town's legislature, approves,decreases or rejects proposed appropriations. It cannot initiate the appropriation process.In matters of finance, this modern incarnation of the New England town meeting does nothingbut react to recommendations from others. Town governments, like all governments, taxand spend. My town of around sixty thousand, is small enough and its representatives honestenough to prove that representative democracy no longer works.
            After two years onthe R.T.M., I ran for the Board of Finance. Board of Finance members are elected atlarge, and more then ten thousand electors chose me. I made no campaign promises, nor didI debate my vision of the way things should be. My sole campaign publicity was a partyflyer containing biographical sketches of every Democratic candidate. The coat tailsof a popular first selectman were behind my election. Since the voters wanted JohnSullivan, I assumed they wanted me to support his programs.
            In 1966 when I waselected to the Board of Finance, the town budget approximated ten million dollars. WhenI resigned ten years later, it exceeded twenty four million dollars, an increase justifiedneither by population increase nor inflation. Our tax rate compared favorably with othertax rates, and the quality of Fairfield life, measured by parks, tennis courts, golfcourses, and the reputation of its schools met or exceeded those of our neighbors.My first lesson as a legislator was that all public enterprise is worthwhile. Two parksare better than one. More police mean more security than fewer policemen. A fire departmentwith hook and ladder is better than one without.
            Unlike representativesof larger constituencies, we did not grapple with policy issues. We decided whether a parkinglot needed paving or the school system a new school. We did not debate affirmative actionas a means to a legitimate public end, nor were we required to choose between competingweapons systems. Like our congressional counterparts, we wrestled with issues beyond ourcompetence. When the sewer commission presented plans for expanding the sanitary sewer system,we listened to proposals which none of us were qualified to evaluate, but unlike courtroomjuries who choose between competing experts, the only testimony we heard supportedthe appropriation. When the Board of Education wanted a new school, its staff presentedstatistics justifying the request. No opposition presented different statistics oroffered alternatives to actions proposed by the bureaucracy.
            I learned that thelaws promulgated by C. Northcote Parkinson, the English observer of bureaucracies, are valid.Our bureaucracy filled available space, and spent every appropriated dollar. Parkinsonwas also right about Boards of Finance. The larger the appropriation, the less itwas debated. We spent hours debating a request for a six thousand dollar bulldozer shedand approved millions for sewers and schools with no discussion. My time on the Boardwas a time of school building. Fifteen years later school enrollment dropped morethan thirty percent and a newly appointed committee explored uses for vacant school buildings.
            Governing is art,not science, and what seems sensible can quickly turn into nonsense. As I grew up inBridgeport, Connecticut its mayor, Jasper McLevy, a roofer turned socialist politician,ran what everyone perceived as a thrifty, honest administration, but he installedcombination sewers, using the same pipe for storm water and sewage, an accepted practicein those days. McLevy did not anticipate the city's growth or the inherent inefficiencyof mixing sewage with rain water. During rainstorms the combination now overwhelmstreatment plants. Some day the federal government will order Bridgeport to separate itssewage from storm water at a cost far greater than the amount McLevy saved.While McLevy savedin Bridgeport, Robert Moses worked his magic in New York. It is fashionable to disparagehis bridges and highways as carriers of congestion and pollution, but Moses did no morethan further the collective desires of his day.
            Although Fairfieldis small, I suspect its bureaucracy resembles bureaucracies everywhere, with its urgefor self preservation and instinct for growth. The goals are related because it is easierto abolish a one man department than terminate large agencies. Growth is a bureaucraticdrive and communities have no way to thwart it. Department heads begin budget presentationswith the observation that theirs is a 'tight' budget. Since last year's budget was also'tight', the new, larger request supposedly represents an effort to meet urgent town needs.Every year the Boards of Finance and Education met to discuss education expenditures whichaccounted for more than fifty percent of the town's total expenditures. The meetings rehashedthe same ideas and invariably ended in disagreement. I facetiously suggested we tape recorda session and replay it annually to spare everyone the inconvenience of attendance.
            The Board of Financewanted lower taxes. The Board of Education wanted 'quality' education. As we debated,Scarsdale, New York achieved a measure of notoriety when a disgruntled citizen flewrags from his chimney to protest school taxes. Scarsdale's per pupil cost was twice ours,but our school superintendent assured us Scarsdale's schools were no better. Scarsdale'scitizens were no doubt told they inhabited the best of all possible educational worlds.Someone was deceived.
            Negotiating witheducators resembles wrestling with jello. Anyone cursed with a modicum of memoryremembered conflicts between past and present testimony. I found myself opposingeducators whose budget increases were primarily salary increases. Teachers comparethemselves to lawyers and doctors, professions with similar educational requirements.Since lawyers and doctors earn more, teachers wanted to correct what they saw as grievousimbalance. Their union made ever increasing demands, all presented as beneficial to thecommunity, but each meaning higher wages and lower productivity. Teachers not onlywanted more money, they wanted smaller classes and fewer extra-curricular activities.Our educators substituted new math for old, but purchased computers only after publicpressure made further delay unwise. They offer wood shop but not television repairbecause tenured wood shop teachers know nothing about electronics. Education, especiallyelementary education, is archaic. Students memorize dates, poems, prepositions, whateverstrikes teachers' fancies, but learn little of the world around them.
            In my school daysteaching was the province of maiden ladies grateful for the security of public employment,but times have changed. After the state permitted collective bargaining, previouslyunderpaid educators inherited the best of two worlds, fixed salary schedules with annualincrements from the old days and collective bargaining. During my tenure on the Board ofFinance some teachers received thirty percent salary increases in one year, the resultof increasing pay rates and increments at the same time. The superintendent of schools,to maintain 'quality' education and reduce costs, persuaded the Board of Education toinstall supervisors at substantial salaries. Administrators earn more than teachers,a fact of educational life that removes the system's few talented people from theclassroom. His plan was to hire inexperienced teachers at the low end of the pay scale.Being inexperienced, they need supervision, but we were told the combination ofsupervision and inexperience cost less than experienced teachers at the upperend of a salary schedule. We were assuredteacher turnover would be high because teachers would leave rather than remain on asalary schedule that did not reward longevity. The concept was fine, but executionwas another matter. Few teachers resigned and collective bargaining made inadequatepay schedules adequate. When the smoke cleared we rewarded teachers for longevityand had supervisors too.
            Taxpayerscomplain about taxes, but understanding is minimal and expectations unrealistic.Communities have no defense against teachers' strikes, and politicians who want reelectioncan do nothing but cut the best deal. Connecticut, like most states, prohibits strikesby public employees, but teachers, in the heyday of teaching, struck regularly, receivedraises, and paid no penalty. Everyone wants the strike to end. Mothers have no place tosend children. High school seniors feared college applications would be prejudiced andtheir lives ruined. Everyone wanted open schools and low taxes. They did not want to betold something had to give.
            Citizens believethey fulfill their civic obligations by voting. When things go wrong they grumble aboutcorruption in high places. They feel superior to those who create messes in Washington,Albany, Hartford, or wherever, but problems are so widespread we cannot blame everythingon venality. I was part of a process that authorized every dollar the town spent, but inthe final analysis, no one controlled where the money went. If the fire chief said heneeded overtime pay because overtime was cheaper than new firemen, we took his word forit. We feared cutting budgets because department heads predict dire consequences andare mean enough to make sure their predictions comes true.
            Public problemsare complex because we are governed by no less than three well meaning legislatures, withnone interested in what the others do, each thinking itself more competent than the others.Larger governments having larger tax bases, collect more revenues which they use toimpose their will on lesser governments. Fairfield operates its school system, good, we aretold, as any, but neither state nor federal governments concur. Each maintains student lessdepartments of education to improve systems with students. The criteria for measuringeducational quality varies from the percentage of high school seniors admitted to thecolleges of their choice to the number of swimming pools in educational facilities.Class size, teacher experience, and equipment (computers, audio-visual aids) areother measurements. We administer nationwide tests, the theory being that those whoscore best attend the best systems. These criteria leave something to be desired,but we have no others.
            Our personaleducational experience, more often than not, is negative. We are hard pressed toremember teachers of lasting impact or courses relevant to post graduate life.An epidemic of drugs in junior high may stir townspeople to action, but ordinarily theylet bad enough alone. They join parent-teachers associations which emphasize fund raising,not educational philosophy, because parents believe opposing educators will create problemsfor their children. Those with the stomach for battle soon lose enthusiasm. Education,like all government concerns, is large, interactive and complex. The usual reaction is despair.When colleges require foreign languages, high schools must provide language programs.Similar interactions touch other departments because high school students need specificknowledge to prosper in college environments. No school system can unilaterally reviseits programs. The inertia is enormous.
            If we list publicconcerns, we see that some are better handled at one level of government than another. Defenseis a national concern, as are interstate highways and foreign affairs. Programs that spreadfinancial responsibility, like unemployment compensation or welfare should be national toequalize benefits and spread burdens over the entire population. Public concerns should behandled at the lowest level of government consistent with the democratic ideal of majorityrule, but life does not draw neat lines. States that build roads decide where those roadsgo even though the road's location is a matter of local impact. As technology expands, welearn things like nuclear en