News & Updates

Call for fairness

2008-05-25T21:10:48Z

ChangeDecatur is not active in specific interests of any group relative to another or any one business versus another. However, individuals involved in ChangeDecatur do continue to care about local issues and speak out from time to time. Recently, several public remarks were made regarding the search for a new city manager and the needed resolution of the AFSCME contract dispute with the city. For more on these topics stay tuned.

West Main Street - Dan Caulkins Analysis

2008-02-29T13:05:13Z

Dear Friends:

There is a lot of public discussion regarding the West Main Street project and Millikin University. I want to make sure you understand my position and the reasons for it. I'm confident that my efforts will result in saving you, the taxpayers, several hundreds of thousands of dollars.

When the City staff first presented the West Main project, they were given a budget by the Council. When they brought the project back for funding, it was over budget about $400,000. Councilman Laegeler and I voted against spending so much money on one street project. Interestingly, the staff didn't disclose the additional $300,000 we were obligated for to match the $1.5 Million federal grant Millikin University secured for their project.

Now, after a year of planning, the City has presented to the Council bits and pieces of a plan that is at least $500,000 over our original obligation. This plan includes expensive elements that a Millikin spokesperson now agrees they can do without.

Now you know why I'm questioning this project in its current form. My objection is the same as before. The City has presented a project that well exceeds our budget - again. Instead of being cost conscious, they are trying to push through this project piecemeal, withholding the full scope and expected cost.

I support a reasonable and necessary project that will meet the needs of Millikin. I will also defend the tax payers of Decatur from wasteful and poorly thought out spending. Significant projects that are not fully vetted with the Council and the community will not be supported. We don't have unlimited resources and must carefully choose the projects we invest in.

Dan Caulkins
Councilman

One Day to Change Decatur; Cost of Government

2008-02-04T22:56:31Z

Just Vote No

A research report refutes claims that the cost of either the Strong Mayor or Commission form of government is more expensive than the council manager form of government. The research studied 504 cities over 20 years (populations of over 50,000). The study found that there was no appreciable difference in the cost of operating a city under the alternative forms of government. Click on this link to see an abstract.

Decatur is Weak Market City; Change & Leadership Needed

2008-02-04T21:21:03Z

In the debate last week, we mentioned the research conducted by the Brookings Research Institute on Weak Market Cities in the US. Brookings studied economic characteristics of 300 cities and identified that one-third of the cities were weak market cities. Many variables were studied. The loss of population and jobs were the principal determinants of weakness. Decatur and Danville were the only two Illinois cities so identified. Policy reform in weak market cities should include: 1) Building on Economic Strengths, 2) Fix the Basics 3) Transform the Physical Landscape 4) Grow the Middle Class, and, 5) Create Neighborhoods of Choice. For the presentation from Brookings click here.

The Costs of City Government - Strong Mayor

2008-01-22T11:35:43Z

The additional costs of a strong mayor form of government will be modest compared to our current city government. The primary sources of additional costs are i.) the fees paid to the city council members, and, ii.) the cost of a full time mayor as head of city government. The payment levels to the council members and mayor will be set by the current city council according to statute. (This info was previously posted in November.)

The annual increase in costs to oversee and direct city affairs will be less than $50,000 per year. That equates to $2.33 per citizen per year or an increase of only $.22 per resident per year for greater representation and accountability. With an annual budget of close to $100 million and countless thousands wasted on weak management and leadership, this is a worthwhile investment to improve our city.

One prominent Chamber Board member, opposed to ChangeDecatur, has stated that it would cost $500,000 per year more for a strong mayor (some critics have said $1 million per year more.). When asked to explain this statement he said "I just think so. I don't have to show you why I think so." These unsupportable estimates are examples of false assertions being made by the Chamber of Commerce to scare voters. JUST VOTE NO

]]> ChangeDecatur advocates the adoption of the strong mayor form of government with aldermanic representation. As a result of one person's legal challenge, the adoption will be broken down into two steps at separate elections. First, Decatur will vote to abandon the current MANAGER form of government with a NO vote. Then Decatur voters will vote to adopt the strong mayor form of government at a future election. The commission form of government will necessarily be adopted on an interim basis with a NO vote at the February 5, 2008 election.

Current City Costs

The Mayor is paid $8,000 per year.
Each council member is paid $4,000 per year or $24,000 in total.
The city manager is paid $131,000 per year, plus car allowance.
The total of these annual costs are $163,000, or more (if benefits are added).

The cost of all these services are currently just about $2.11 per citizen per year.

ChangeDecatur will not be responisble for setting the compensation of the mayor and council under a strong mayor form of city government. Illinois law places that responsibility on the current city council. We like other voters will only be able to offer our opinions on the compensation levels.

Reasonable Cost Estimates of Strong Mayor form of Government

Mayor $100,000 per year
City Council $4,000 per year each; total $80,000
City Manager - none
Total $180,000

These costs equate to just over $2.33 per citizen of Decatur. The increase is $.22 per citizen per year or approximately $17,000 per year.

Some have asked: "Won't we need assistants to help the Mayor run the city?" The answer is yes and we already have them.

The city currently has 4 assistant city managers and several additional department heads. By law, the mayor in a strong mayor form of city government is entitled to assistants whose qualifications are set by the city council and whose compensation is agreed to by the mayor and city council. Those familiar with the current city structure believe that there are enough professional managers in place to assist the mayor without additional costs.

Survey of Other Cities Compensation Practices - ChangeDecatur compiled a survey of compensation practices of other cities. Several key points are worth noting:

Decatur is under-represented when measured by citizens per council member. Decatur currently has nearly 13,000 citizens per council member which is the highest number in the ten downstate cities. Larger cities tend to have higher numbers of citizens per council member. (Chicago being the highest we know of in IL.) Smaller cities tend to have smaller numbers of citizens per council member. This measure shows the the breadth of people that each council member has to try to understand the needs of. The average of the ten downstate cities is 8,863 citizens per council member (two-thirds of Decatur's level). A less comparable group of five smaller cities downstate has an average of 3,680 citizens per council member. If Decatur had 20 aldermen, the ratio would be 3,850 per council member. That number would increase slightly with 16 council members (expected number after 2010 census.)
Decatur invests less in its city government leadership than any other city in the downstate ten. The average of this group is $3.32 per citizen per year while Decatur only spends $2.12 per citizen per year. If Decatur's costs increased to the average of the downstate ten, Decatur would spend an additional $92,000 per year. ChangeDecatur estimates that the strong mayor form of government will cost less than $50,000 more per year. (City government leadership is the aggregate salary cost of the Mayor, city manager or administrator and council members. It does not include other assistants or benefits.)
The highest amount of compensation for full time mayors (as head of city government) is $108,000 for the mayor of Springfield and $90,400 for the mayor of Rockford. Both of those cities have much larger populations than Decatur and more complex city government.
The average cost of city council salaries for the downstate ten is $7,680. Four cities in the downstate ten paid annual city council salaries of between $4,000 and $5,000 per year per council member. Larger amounts tended to be paid in larger cities with aldermanic representation.

Lee Iacocca Says "Throw the Bums Out"

2008-01-21T14:53:07Z

Remember Lee Iacocca, the man who rescued Chrysler Corporation from it's death throes? He has a new book, and here are some excerpts. Lee Iacocca Says:

'Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, 'Stay the course' Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is America , not the damned 'Titanic'. I'll give you a sound bite: 'Throw all the bums out!'

]]> You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore. The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we're fiddling in Iraq , the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving 'pom-poms' instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise of the ' America ' my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've had enough. How about you?

I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have. The Biggest 'C' is Crisis! Leaders are made, not born. Leadership is forged in times of crisis. It's easy to sit there with your feet up on the desk and talk theory. Or send someone else's kids off to war when you've never seen a battlefield yourself. It's another thing to lead when your world comes tumbling down. On September 11, 2001, we needed a strong leader more than any other time in our history. We needed a steady hand to guide us out of the ashes.

A Hell of a Mess

So here's where we stand. We're immersed in a bloody war with no plan for winning and no plan for leaving. We're running the biggest deficit in the history of the country. We're losing the manufacturing edge to Asia , while our once-great companies are getting slaughtered by health care costs. Gas prices are skyrocketing, and nobody in power has a coherent energy policy. Our schools are in trouble. Our borders are like sieves.

The middle class is being squeezed every which way. These are times that cry out for leadership.

But when you look around, you've got to ask: 'Where have all the leaders gone?' Where are the curious, creative communicators? Where are the people of character, courage, conviction, omnipotence, and common sense? I may be a sucker for alliteration, but I think you get the point.

Name me a leader who has a better idea for homeland security than making us take off our shoes in airports and throw away our shampoo? We've spent billions of dollars building a huge new bureaucracy, and all we know how to do is react to things that have already happened.

Name me one leader who emerged from the crisis of Hurricane Katrina. Congress has yet to spend a single day evaluating the response to the hurricane, or demanding accountability for the decisions that were made in the crucial hours after the storm. Everyone's hunkering down, fingers crossed, hoping it doesn't happen again. Now, that's just crazy. Storms happen. Deal with it. Make a plan. Figure out what you're going to do the next time..

Name me an industry leader who is thinking creatively about how we can restore our competitive edge in manufacturing. Who would have believed
that there could ever be a time when 'The Big Three' referred to Japanese car companies? How did this happen, and more important, what are we going to do about it?

Name me a government leader who can articulate a plan for paying down the debt, or solving the energy crisis, or managing the health care problem. The silence is deafening. But these are the crises that are eating away at our country and milking the middle class dry. I have news for the gang in Congress. We didn't elect you to sit on your asses and do nothing and remain silent while our democracy is being hijacked and our greatness is being replaced with mediocrity. What is everybody so afraid of? That some bonehead on Fox News will call them a name? Give me a break. Why don't you guys show some spine for a change?
Had Enough?

Hey, I'm not trying to be the voice of gloom and doom here. I'm trying to light a fire. I'm speaking out because I have hope, I believe in America. In my lifetime I've had the privilege of living through some of America 's greatest moments. I've also experienced some of our worst crises: the 'Great Depression', 'World War II', the 'Korean War', the 'Kennedy Assassination', the 'Vietnam War', the 1970s oil crisis, and the struggles of recent years culminating with 9/11. If I've learned one thing, it's this: 'You don't get anywhere by standing on the sidelines waiting for somebody else to take action. Whether it's building a better car or building a better future for our children, we all have a role to play. That's the challenge I'm raising in this book. It's a call to 'Action' for people who, like me, believe in America . It's not too late, but it's getting pretty close. So let's shake off the crap and go to work. Let's tell 'em all we've had 'enough.'

Honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

2008-01-21T13:42:41Z

Today is an important day to recall our history and the people that made our city and country greater. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a visionary of human decency and fairness. His leadership changed our country for the better. Many of his prayers for our country are relevant to the quest for better representation in Decatur. Quoting from his speech "I Have a Dream" delivered at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC in 1963:

"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal............... When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness............Let freedom ring. And when this happens, and when we allow freedom ring—when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children........will be able to join hands and sing in the words ........Free at last! Free at last! ..."

]]> Quoting from Time Magazine's site of the Time 100: "It is only because of King and the movement that he led that the U.S. can claim to be the leader of the "free world" without inviting smirks of disdain and disbelief. Had he and the blacks and whites who marched beside him failed, vast regions of the U.S. would have remained morally indistinguishable from South Africa under apartheid, with terrible consequences for America's standing among nations. How could America have convincingly inveighed against the Iron Curtain while an equally oppressive Cotton Curtain remained draped across the South?" For more on King click here.

More Here from the King Research and Education Institute at Stanford

City Manager Duties & Independence

2008-01-15T11:21:35Z

ChangeDecatur believes that the MANAGER form of government ineffectively apportions too much power into the hands of someone not directly elected by the citizens of Decatur. After a presentation to community leaders yesterday, we heard that some presume that Decatur's mayor and council have certain authority over the affairs of the city. Mayoral authority is limited by statute in IL (why the form of government is called a "weak mayor" system.)

Under the MANAGER form of government, the unelected city manager is the executive head of government. The following memorandum explains the role of the council, the mayor and city manager prepared for the Illinois City/County Management Association. For those interested in a copy of this memo, please click on this link.

A Strong Mayor in Hartford,CT

2008-01-10T00:30:45Z

Hartford Connecticut adopted a Strong Mayor form of government in 2003. Eddie Perez was Hartford's first strong mayor in 70 years. Here are excerpts from an article about the transition. For a link to the entire article, please click here.

As a strong mayor, Perez is Hartford's CEO. He says that power has helped him reform the way the city is run. "We inherited a system of management that was severely flawed. The old system was filled with patronage. This has been a shock to the system. It's a new accountability. We were never going to get good results with the old system." ............"Back when we had a weak mayor and everything was done by committee, you didn't get these kinds of people," says Matt Hennessy, Perez's chief of staff. "These people were saying, 'We're coming in to change the way things are run.' They weren't going to come unless they had the power and the freedom to do that."......... The city council opposed the change to Hartford's charter, so Peters worked to bring the issue to a public vote through a petition. .......... Perez took up the fight, and in 2003 voters approved the new charter. Perez became a strong mayor in January 2004. "We had no opposition to the strong-mayor system once it was brought to a fair vote," he says. "It was a fait accompli."

Civics Lesson; The Federalists Papers and a Strong Executive

2008-01-09T14:03:37Z

We occasionally neglect our history for the lessons in provides. In fact, our long standing constitution provides important law as it relates to our rights to a government of the people, by the people and for the people. As a reminder, three of the most cherished rights in the US constitution are the right to free speech, the right to petition our government and the right to vote. Under the Illinois constitution, we have the right to modify our city government when 10% of the votes cast for mayor submit a petition for referendum.

The Federalists Papers were written to promote the US Constitution's adoption in 1787 and 1788. Essay number 69 discusses the power of the President as Chief Executive versus the King of England as a Monarch. The historical contrasts are still relevant today. Consider the comparison of the President to the Strong Mayor; and, the King to the the City Manager. Should Decatur adopt a new constitution by voting NO to the Status Quo? We think a NO to Retain the Manager Form may be appropriate.

]]> From the New York Packet.
Friday, March 14, 1788.

HAMILTON

To the People of the State of New York:
I PROCEED now to trace the real characters of the proposed
Executive, as they are marked out in the plan of the convention.
This will serve to place in a strong light the unfairness of the
representations which have been made in regard to it.
The first thing which strikes our attention is, that the
executive authority, with few exceptions, is to be vested in a
single magistrate. This will scarcely, however, be considered as a
point upon which any comparison can be grounded; for if, in this
particular, there be a resemblance to the king of Great Britain,
there is not less a resemblance to the Grand Seignior, to the khan
of Tartary, to the Man of the Seven Mountains, or to the governor of
New York.
That magistrate is to be elected for FOUR years; and is to be
re-eligible as often as the people of the United States shall think
him worthy of their confidence. In these circumstances there is a
total dissimilitude between HIM and a king of Great Britain, who is
an HEREDITARY monarch, possessing the crown as a patrimony
descendible to his heirs forever; but there is a close analogy
between HIM and a governor of New York, who is elected for THREE
years, and is re-eligible without limitation or intermission. If we
consider how much less time would be requisite for establishing a
dangerous influence in a single State, than for establishing a like
influence throughout the United States, we must conclude that a
duration of FOUR years for the Chief Magistrate of the Union is a
degree of permanency far less to be dreaded in that office, than a
duration of THREE years for a corresponding office in a single State.
The President of the United States would be liable to be
impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other
high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would
afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary
course of law. The person of the king of Great Britain is sacred
and inviolable; there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is
amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected without
involving the crisis of a national revolution. In this delicate and
important circumstance of personal responsibility, the President of
Confederated America would stand upon no better ground than a
governor of New York, and upon worse ground than the governors of
Maryland and Delaware.
The President of the United States is to have power to return a
bill, which shall have passed the two branches of the legislature,
for reconsideration; and the bill so returned is to become a law,
if, upon that reconsideration, it be approved by two thirds of both
houses. The king of Great Britain, on his part, has an absolute
negative upon the acts of the two houses of Parliament. The disuse
of that power for a considerable time past does not affect the
reality of its existence; and is to be ascribed wholly to the
crown's having found the means of substituting influence to
authority, or the art of gaining a majority in one or the other of
the two houses, to the necessity of exerting a prerogative which
could seldom be exerted without hazarding some degree of national
agitation. The qualified negative of the President differs widely
from this absolute negative of the British sovereign; and tallies
exactly with the revisionary authority of the council of revision of
this State, of which the governor is a constituent part. In this
respect the power of the President would exceed that of the governor
of New York, because the former would possess, singly, what the
latter shares with the chancellor and judges; but it would be
precisely the same with that of the governor of Massachusetts, whose
constitution, as to this article, seems to have been the original
from which the convention have copied.
The President is to be the ``commander-in-chief of the army and
navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States,
when called into the actual service of the United States. He is to
have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the
United States, EXCEPT IN CASES OF IMPEACHMENT; to recommend to the
consideration of Congress such measures as he shall judge necessary
and expedient; to convene, on extraordinary occasions, both houses
of the legislature, or either of them, and, in case of disagreement
between them WITH RESPECT TO THE TIME OF ADJOURNMENT, to adjourn
them to such time as he shall think proper; to take care that the
laws be faithfully executed; and to commission all officers of the
United States.'' In most of these particulars, the power of the
President will resemble equally that of the king of Great Britain
and of the governor of New York. The most material points of
difference are these: First. The President will have only the
occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by
legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the
Union. The king of Great Britain and the governor of New York have
at all times the entire command of all the militia within their
several jurisdictions. In this article, therefore, the power of the
President would be inferior to that of either the monarch or the
governor. Secondly. The President is to be commander-in-chief
of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his
authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great
Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to
nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military
and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy;
while that of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and
to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all which, by
the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the
legislature.1 The governor of New York, on the other hand, is
by the constitution of the State vested only with the command of its
militia and navy. But the constitutions of several of the States
expressly declare their governors to be commanders-in-chief, as well
of the army as navy; and it may well be a question, whether those
of New Hampshire and Massachusetts, in particular, do not, in this
instance, confer larger powers upon their respective governors, than
could be claimed by a President of the United States. Thirdly.
The power of the President, in respect to pardons, would extend to
all cases, EXCEPT THOSE OF IMPEACHMENT. The governor of New York
may pardon in all cases, even in those of impeachment, except for
treason and murder. Is not the power of the governor, in this
article, on a calculation of political consequences, greater than
that of the President? All conspiracies and plots against the
government, which have not been matured into actual treason, may be
screened from punishment of every kind, by the interposition of the
prerogative of pardoning. If a governor of New York, therefore,
should be at the head of any such conspiracy, until the design had
been ripened into actual hostility he could insure his accomplices
and adherents an entire impunity. A President of the Union, on the
other hand, though he may even pardon treason, when prosecuted in
the ordinary course of law, could shelter no offender, in any
degree, from the effects of impeachment and conviction. Would not
the prospect of a total indemnity for all the preliminary steps be a
greater temptation to undertake and persevere in an enterprise
against the public liberty, than the mere prospect of an exemption
from death and confiscation, if the final execution of the design,
upon an actual appeal to arms, should miscarry? Would this last
expectation have any influence at all, when the probability was
computed, that the person who was to afford that exemption might
himself be involved in the consequences of the measure, and might be
incapacitated by his agency in it from affording the desired
impunity? The better to judge of this matter, it will be necessary
to recollect, that, by the proposed Constitution, the offense of
treason is limited ``to levying war upon the United States, and
adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort''; and that
by the laws of New York it is confined within similar bounds.
Fourthly. The President can only adjourn the national legislature
in the single case of disagreement about the time of adjournment.
The British monarch may prorogue or even dissolve the Parliament.
The governor of New York may also prorogue the legislature of this
State for a limited time; a power which, in certain situations, may
be employed to very important purposes.
The President is to have power, with the advice and consent of
the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the senators
present concur. The king of Great Britain is the sole and absolute
representative of the nation in all foreign transactions. He can of
his own accord make treaties of peace, commerce, alliance, and of
every other description. It has been insinuated, that his authority
in this respect is not conclusive, and that his conventions with
foreign powers are subject to the revision, and stand in need of the
ratification, of Parliament. But I believe this doctrine was never
heard of, until it was broached upon the present occasion. Every
jurist2 of that kingdom, and every other man acquainted with its
Constitution, knows, as an established fact, that the prerogative of
making treaties exists in the crown in its utomst plentitude; and
that the compacts entered into by the royal authority have the most
complete legal validity and perfection, independent of any other
sanction. The Parliament, it is true, is sometimes seen employing
itself in altering the existing laws to conform them to the
stipulations in a new treaty; and this may have possibly given
birth to the imagination, that its co-operation was necessary to the
obligatory efficacy of the treaty. But this parliamentary
interposition proceeds from a different cause: from the necessity
of adjusting a most artificial and intricate system of revenue and
commercial laws, to the changes made in them by the operation of the
treaty; and of adapting new provisions and precautions to the new
state of things, to keep the machine from running into disorder. In
this respect, therefore, there is no comparison between the intended
power of the President and the actual power of the British sovereign.
The one can perform alone what the other can do only with the
concurrence of a branch of the legislature. It must be admitted,
that, in this instance, the power of the federal Executive would
exceed that of any State Executive. But this arises naturally from
the sovereign power which relates to treaties. If the Confederacy
were to be dissolved, it would become a question, whether the
Executives of the several States were not solely invested with that
delicate and important prerogative.
The President is also to be authorized to receive ambassadors
and other public ministers. This, though it has been a rich theme
of declamation, is more a matter of dignity than of authority. It
is a circumstance which will be without consequence in the
administration of the government; and it was far more convenient
that it should be arranged in this manner, than that there should be
a necessity of convening the legislature, or one of its branches,
upon every arrival of a foreign minister, though it were merely to
take the place of a departed predecessor.
The President is to nominate, and, WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT
OF THE SENATE, to appoint ambassadors and other public ministers,
judges of the Supreme Court, and in general all officers of the
United States established by law, and whose appointments are not
otherwise provided for by the Constitution. The king of Great
Britain is emphatically and truly styled the fountain of honor. He
not only appoints to all offices, but can create offices. He can
confer titles of nobility at pleasure; and has the disposal of an
immense number of church preferments. There is evidently a great
inferiority in the power of the President, in this particular, to
that of the British king; nor is it equal to that of the governor
of New York, if we are to interpret the meaning of the constitution
of the State by the practice which has obtained under it. The power
of appointment is with us lodged in a council, composed of the
governor and four members of the Senate, chosen by the Assembly.
The governor CLAIMS, and has frequently EXERCISED, the right of
nomination, and is ENTITLED to a casting vote in the appointment.
If he really has the right of nominating, his authority is in this
respect equal to that of the President, and exceeds it in the
article of the casting vote. In the national government, if the
Senate should be divided, no appointment could be made; in the
government of New York, if the council should be divided, the
governor can turn the scale, and confirm his own nomination.3
If we compare the publicity which must necessarily attend the mode
of appointment by the President and an entire branch of the national
legislature, with the privacy in the mode of appointment by the
governor of New York, closeted in a secret apartment with at most
four, and frequently with only two persons; and if we at the same
time consider how much more easy it must be to influence the small
number of which a council of appointment consists, than the
considerable number of which the national Senate would consist, we
cannot hesitate to pronounce that the power of the chief magistrate
of this State, in the disposition of offices, must, in practice, be
greatly superior to that of the Chief Magistrate of the Union.
Hence it appears that, except as to the concurrent authority of
the President in the article of treaties, it would be difficult to
determine whether that magistrate would, in the aggregate, possess
more or less power than the Governor of New York. And it appears
yet more unequivocally, that there is no pretense for the parallel
which has been attempted between him and the king of Great Britain.
But to render the contrast in this respect still more striking, it
may be of use to throw the principal circumstances of dissimilitude
into a closer group.
The President of the United States would be an officer elected
by the people for FOUR years; the king of Great Britain is a
perpetual and HEREDITARY prince. The one would be amenable to
personal punishment and disgrace; the person of the other is sacred
and inviolable. The one would have a QUALIFIED negative upon the
acts of the legislative body; the other has an ABSOLUTE negative.
The one would have a right to command the military and naval forces
of the nation; the other, in addition to this right, possesses that
of DECLARING war, and of RAISING and REGULATING fleets and armies by
his own authority. The one would have a concurrent power with a
branch of the legislature in the formation of treaties; the other
is the SOLE POSSESSOR of the power of making treaties. The one
would have a like concurrent authority in appointing to offices;
the other is the sole author of all appointments. The one can
confer no privileges whatever; the other can make denizens of
aliens, noblemen of commoners; can erect corporations with all the
rights incident to corporate bodies. The one can prescribe no rules
concerning the commerce or currency of the nation; the other is in
several respects the arbiter of commerce, and in this capacity can
establish markets and fairs, can regulate weights and measures, can
lay embargoes for a limited time, can coin money, can authorize or
prohibit the circulation of foreign coin. The one has no particle
of spiritual jurisdiction; the other is the supreme head and
governor of the national church! What answer shall we give to those
who would persuade us that things so unlike resemble each other?
The same that ought to be given to those who tell us that a
government, the whole power of which would be in the hands of the
elective and periodical servants of the people, is an aristocracy, a
monarchy, and a despotism.

The Decatur Chamber Of Commerce Board Said What?

2008-01-02T08:00:31Z

In a recent Weekly Fax, the Chamber Board announced its support for the status quo in Decatur's city government. Their comments are below.

Readers should know that no one on the Chamber Board ever had a meaningful discussion with any of the leaders of ChangeDecatur to learn about the merits of changing Decatur's city government. They think that Decatur should keep the form of government that has proven unresponsive and unaccountable.

ChangeDecatur advocates a strong mayor form of government where the mayor is the head of government and accountable to voters for city government. Also, a strong mayor form of government has professional management and alderman elected from each neighborhood of Decatur.

ChangeDecatur looked up where the Chamber Board votes. It turns out that half of the Board does not vote in Decatur. Go figure. Do they think it is fair to the voters of Decatur to remove a key question from the ballot that 1,600 Decatur residents asked to vote on? Tell us what you think.

It is simply untrue that the current system provides better representation. The argument that it is more costly can be easily shown as misleading.

From The Recent Weekly Fax - CHAMBER BOARD VOTES TO SUPPORT COUNCIL-MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT

After careful consideration, the Chamber's board recently decided to support Decatur's present council-manager form of government.

]]>

Strong Mayor Government Will Lead to Better Informed Representatives - Tom Allen

2007-12-13T13:35:24Z

On Nov. 12 in a story entitled “Residents Fear Traffic Ruckus,” councilman Shad Edwards said he was unaware of studies to build tunnels or bridges on the city’s east side. “I had no clue,” Edwards said. “They (city administrators) didn’t tell us that.” He said the council should be better in-formed about the scope of city studies.
If we had the mayor/alderman form of government at the time of those studies, those east side alderman would not have been “unaware or clueless” as they would have been involved from day one. Here in lies the glaring weakness of managerial government as planning and study sessions are often conducted in a vacuum out of view from those who need to be involved. On the other hand, the alderman type of gov-ernment is conducted in the open and there in lies its strength.
]]> I’ve heard it argued that the mayor and council are the taxpayers’ direct link to city staff — they intercede for us in our need. Edwards is a legitimate watchdog. If this matter slipped by him, where is the oversight?
Remember the adage, “To get something done, go directly to the top.” With our form of government, we cannot reach the heart of our problems. The mayor and council are like a football team’s front line: they block everyone else out.
This February, we should be able to elect a responsive full-time mayor along with geographically elected al-derman. In a town as small as we have become over the last 30 years, one can readily see that your alderman will be your neighbor. Who better understands your local needs than your very own neighbor? As taxpayers, we have the right to know what is going on.

Thomas C. Allen
Decatur

ChangeDecatur will lead to Better Representation - Norm Etnier

2007-12-13T13:31:05Z

It is time for Decatur to change to a strong mayor form of government that will better represent all people in the major decisions affecting our city. The current council-manager form of government lends itself to the prominent and the powerful unduly influencing important decisions. A few “at-large” council members are less likely to be in touch with the individual concerns of people in each neighborhood of our City.

]]> The founding fathers of the United States fought hard for taxation with representation. Federal and state legislative districts were created to effectively represent all citizens. Imagine the kind of representation we would have in downstate Illinois if our representatives were elected at large instead of by districts? Not much. At large representation does not promote conversation between council members and the citizens they represent. Too often many are not represented at all. To illustrate this point, a thirty year study of at large voting in Cincinnati, Ohio showed that sixty percent of council seats were filled from only four of fifty-two Cincinnati’s neighborhoods. Thirty of these fifty-two neighborhoods elected no representatives to the city council over the same thirty years.

With the strong mayor form of government, ordinary people could be elected from ten Decatur districts. Each of us could run for office without first being wealthy or prominent. Anyone able to persuade their neighbors that they would be honest representatives could be elected. This is the form of government that Abraham Lincoln referred to as a “…a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

Is a 20 Member City Council Too Big? NO!

2007-12-08T16:50:41Z

Simple Facts and Simple Truth - Many..many boards and councils in Decatur have 20 or more people. We have any number of sites that could easily accomodate a larger council. In fact, it might well lead to more open government to have some of the council meetings held in facilities throughout the city so that citizens in neighborhoods can more easily observe their city government function. For all the active research going on in these blogs, has anyone inventoried the facilities in the civic center? How about the current auditorium as a place to hold council meetings? Simple truth.

]]> It is noteworthy that a number of smaller cities have a much lower ratio of citizens per council member than Decatur would have. With the 20 council members required by statute, Decatur would have 3,850 citizens per council member. Danville has 2,500. Quincy 2,850. Taylorville and Jacksonville have close to 1,400. Some cities have higher with Chicago being the highest and having fifty alderman.

The size of the city council is a red herring issue used by people that don’t want all residents of Decatur to be effectively represented. A major advantage of the ChangeDecatur reforms of city government is to greatly increase representation of all citizens in Decatur. VOTERS will be able to elect two council members from their neighborhood to represent their family and business on city affairs. The number can be reduced if voters choose to reduce it once in place. The number will likely decrease to 16 after the 2010 census.

Our founding fathers believed in our ability to self-govern and so do we. Its too bad that some in Decatur don’t.
ChangeDecatur - Your Voice, Your Vote, Your City.

Let the Voters Decide - John Phillips

2007-12-08T16:43:32Z

On Nov. 7, the Greater Decatur Chamber of Commerce announced its intention to hire legal counsel to oppose ChangeDecatur�s court-approved ballot initiative on the basis, in part, of its confusing format and appearance on a primary election ballot. I have three businesses that are Chamber members, I am a strong supporter of the Chamber, Randy Prince and the Chamber board, but I believe strongly that they are doing the wrong thing here.

]]>

Mucking about on legal maneuvers will be shown to be without merit, but, more important, it appears to come from motivation and logic that is deeply flawed. The appearance of this issue on the Feb. 5 primary ballot has been approved by a judge. So why fight it? The stated reason is their idea that this is a state law violation and to avoid a post-election legal challenge.

Both sides claim to be technically right. Nonsense, this is what happens when lawyers become the problem instead of the solution. The voting public is the right group to decide and do it in an election with the highest possible turnout. We need to get on with it and let the people decide.

Both political parties have endorsed having the issue on the ballot without taking a position in favor or against the question. The Chamber�s position is legitimate support of their perceived business leader�s interest. Existing businesses owners know how to get things done with the present mayor and council.

Why mess with it? The reason is that Decatur, the city I love, is dying despite the best efforts of very good and well-intentioned leaders under the present system. Let�s have all the people in Decatur decide if they want to try something different, not a limited few.

The confusing ballot is a legitimate concern, not favored by those for or against change, but it is the state law, and we have to live with it or elect people who will change it. When do you think such a change will come to the top of the state legislative agenda? Chamber lawyers claim it could have been a simpler, single question issue. However, this legally imposed confusion has a silver lining. Both sides will have to do an excellent job educating the public on the issue and why they should be for or against it. The required result will be a well-informed public that will have bought into a stake in the city�s future under either system.

Finally, I refer interested citizens to a 2002 H&R article by Susan Reidy titled "Painful lesson learned" analyzing the reason for the disaster when Decatur failed to support the annexation of what was to become Hickory Point Mall. In this article, it suggests and provides testimony that this mistake was caused when downtown businesspeople influenced the outcome by lobbying the mayor and council that the mall would harm their businesses.

The Chamber position represents the status quo. Change will happen, and many of us resist, but we must let the people decide to embrace or resist it. This must not be decided by an entrenched business lobby, of which I am a part.

Let the debate begin. I trust the collective wisdom of the electorate.

If ChangeDecatur cannot make its case, overcome a confusing ballot and the potential weaknesses of a strong mayor and aldermanic system, it will be defeated. Just vote "yes" on the first ballot question "Shall the City of Decatur retain the manager form of municipal government?"

If the case can be made to your satisfaction that a change to a strong mayor and local aldermanic council form, vote "no" then go on to the second question and vote yes for this form of government.

This is one case in which the Democratic process we advocate to the world will work. Let the people decide.

John Phillips is a business owner with a family of 15 living and working or going to school in Decatur.

This guest editorial appeared in the Decatur Herald & Review December 6, 2007.