Big government stalks Centennial
(Denver Post, May 18) “The era of big government is over,” Americans were told by Bill Clinton in 1995. If only. Since then we’ve seen his wife run for President in pursuit of a health care takeover, his buddy Al Gore propagandize for massive intervention on global warming, and his successor George Bush balloon the budget deficit. States and localities have continued to fatten as well, multiplying budgets, payrolls, and new government entities at “an astounding rate,” according to Clint Bolick, author of the book “Grassroots Tyranny.” Familiar with Colorado from his years at Mountain States Legal Foundation, Bolick is now with the Goldwater Institute in Arizona. “Big government didn’t disappear,” he says, “it simply moved to the suburbs.”
Our state is notorious for its kudzu-like proliferation of special taxing districts. We’re also the place where life imitated art in 2000, when a city called Centennial incorporated itself south of Denver, echoing James Michener’s novel by that name about an imaginary town north of Denver. A struggle over the young municipality’s future is now underway.
Centennial, where I’ve lived since 1974, will hold an election June 10 on its proposed home-rule charter as drafted by a citizens’ commission. Residents are divided. The debate matters to all Coloradans as a case study in government’s inherent tendency to grow, whether driven by real needs or not.
Commission chairman Cathy Noon argues that under home rule, “we the citizens will craft our own governmental structure, one that meets our needs,” resulting in “more self-governance” and “enhanced quality of life.” Sounds good. But Chris Raab, head of the opposition, worries that city hall insiders are “trying to grow the city, and the growth is not paying for itself.” He contends the charter is fatally flawed with “poor checks and balances.”
Sounds bad; so who’s right? Under Colorado’s constitution, a city or town is entirely a creature of the state legislature unless it votes for home rule under a mini-constitution of its own. Such autonomy has superficial appeal, and most of our larger municipalities have opted for it. But you’d best be skeptical if you value individual liberty, small government, and free markets. Political empire-building is just too big a temptation, especially in localities.
Studying my locality’s proposed charter at CentennialColorado.com, I found a number of commendable safeguards against overgovernment. But they’re mixed with troublesome provisions reflecting the weak checks and balances that Raab criticizes. Why eliminate the treasurer and the clerk, two of the only three citywide elected officers? Why empower the mayor and council members to fire each other for undefined “good cause”? I’ll be voting no.
It’s nothing personal. I just want more safeguards than this plan gives. Founding Father James Madison warned that “schemes of oppression” are easier to carry out locally because special interests swing more weight there. City politicians are much less well-known than those in state and federal offices, notes Clint Bolick, adding: “Local governments are like vampires: they operate best under cover of darkness.”
Randy Simmons, who teaches political economy at Utah State and is mayor of his small town, says that a meddlesome populism infects city councils, and the lack of partisan accountability in local government makes it worse. He observes that even Republicans tend to “go socialist” in municipal office, tempted to “do good with other people’s money.”
Simmons says he’s glad Utah’s constitution has no home rule option, so their legislature can prevent grassroots tyranny. But Colorado lacks that protection. “If the charter’s not written right, citizens can lose control of their city to the hired manager,” says Larry Merkel, who as a Wheat Ridge councilman saw it happen there in 1976. Will Centennial make the same mistake? Let’s hope not.
The author can be reached at John@BackBoneAmerica.net
Excuse me, John. But the City Council and Mayor can fire each other right now if they want to.
The Clerk and Treasurer are not policy makers and, in fact, have no useful job currently in our city government.
Andrea
by Andrea Suhaka | Friday, May 16, 2008 | 5:45 pmJohn,
I fail to see how a miniscule few “activist oponents” to a very good Charter have your blessing for a NO vote. You said,” I found a number of commendable safeguards against overgovernment.” Could you list those safeguards that actually make this charter a very good charter. It certainly gives more control to the voters and constituents of this fine City rather than the current State Stutute regulations that the City has operated under since it’s inception. I certainly hope that you give fair time to both sides this Sunday, and cautious of “airing” the distorted factual untruths by the opposition. Especially if you really mean “It’s nothing personal”
by Dr.George Gatseos II | Friday, May 16, 2008 | 8:16 pmJohn,
My support for the charter started with the fact that it eliminated the two superfluous positions of elected Clerk and Treasurer. I don’t believe that Centennial needs those allegedly “watchdog” positions any more than it needs an elected Police Chief, Public Works Director, Building Inspector, Dog Catcher, etc. to watch over the employees performing those functions. I want my elected mayor and council people to be the “small government” which performs the oversight. Starting with that positive feature of the charter, I studied the rest of it and have come to believe that it represents a positive step forward in restraining the growth of the city, if that is what we, the citizens want.
Tom Kocialski
by Tom Kocialski | Sunday, May 18, 2008 | 8:30 amJohn,
The charter follows current state statutes for removal of a fellow councilmember for “good cause” by requiring a two-thirds vote AFTER notice and a public hearing.
In an effort for more citizen control, what the charter does provide - and where I think this subject trips up some people - is that upon approval, the charter will empower the CITIZEN to recall a council member more efficiently than the way the city currently operates. Currently, citizens have to wait for an elected official to stand in office a full 180 days before circulating a recall petition. Once the charter is approved, that time will be cut in half. I believe this would be the kind of provision you would support - more citizen control.
I recommend www.homerule2008.com for further clarification.
Regards,
by Shannon Gish | Sunday, May 18, 2008 | 9:15 amShannon M. Gish
John,
I can’t believe you would use an excuse like “I just want more safeguards than this plan gives”.
Talk about safeguards!!! The proposed charter gives the citizens far more control over and greater access to their own city government. It empowers citizens with rights of recall and referendum. Compared to the status quo it requires higher numbers of positive votes of the City Council for new franchises, franchise fee increases and eminent domain and limits the powers of the mayor.
If you had read the charter you would probably know these facts but instead it looks like you are towing the line - why I can’t be sure.
Readers should visit www.homerule2008.com and get the facts. They will see why going Home Rule will truly benefit the citizens of Centennial.
by Dave Hanna | Sunday, May 18, 2008 | 4:07 pmDearest John Andrews,
I fear we have drifted apart in our conservative views as my vision of the Centennial Home Rule Charter differs from your views greatly. In the past our thinking was so in tune it causes me great angst and mystifies me why we grew apart. Both of us are life long Republican (starting with President Dwight D. Eisenhower) I felt comfortable always knowing we were bonded by a common interest. Alas, I have met many like minded people in the middle of a non-partisan community. I have been introduced to 21 Charter Commissioners and find them capturing my thoughts and imagination. They are creating a more comprehensive governing tool and you are trying to keep me isolated in the existing Statutory City. I ask myself why, oh why is my “knight in shinning armor” opposing my new found friends. Is it because I have found a more open vision for my future and will be able to self governed with other citizen’s help? If you were that passionate apposing Home Rule, you should have run for one of 21 elected commissioners seats? I may have out gown your “Statutory” thinking as I am changing in a good way. I would have looked up to you as my hero if you only understood you are holding me back. You broke my conservative heart.
So consider this my “Dear John” letter, as I have found someone new that has captured my imagination and inspired my future. I feel so liberated in writing this letter. So John, just so you understand, I will be voting FOR HOME RULE and I hope we can still be friends.
Your past devoted conservative,
by Ron Weidmann | Thursday, May 22, 2008 | 11:00 amRon Weidmann
If eliminating 2 of 3 city wide elected offices is of no consequence as opined by a former Council person, why not cut the Mayors office rather than both the Clerk and Treasurer? Since Centennial hired a City Manager, the Mayor’s office is mostly ceremonial. The Clerk and Treasurer by contrast provide the “useful job” of oversight. John speaks for many, and voices the conscience of the spirit of Centennial that promised thrift, a job gone begging at present. A No vote is a vote for oversight, honesty and accountability.
by Lawrence Depenbusch | Thursday, May 29, 2008 | 9:12 am