
StepUp America Part 3: What you can’t do on City Council
Part 3 in an ongoing series following a cohort of 16 potential candidates learning about what it’s like to run for and serve in local government.
The goal ofStepUp Bend is to help a bipartisan group of smart, reasonable people determine whether they should run for local office. Part of that process is to let them know about the limitations on local elected officials. One problem these officials face is that many run to change the world, or at least their community, and encounter unforeseen and sometimes immoveable obstacles to accomplishing their goals. Sometimes they make unrealistic campaign promises; other times they just run out of steam in the face of legal or political hurdles.
Either way, it’s important for potential candidates to understand some of the limitations on what they can do in office. Because local government is a common entry point into America’s political system, if we want good people to run for office and succeed, it’s a good idea to know what some of the more difficult obstacles can be. This can lead to better-informed candidates making better-informed promises leading to a better-informed electorate, which in turn leads to better elected officials, etc.
There are two primary types of obstacles local elected officials face: political obstacles and legal obstacles. Examples of political obstacles include being unable to convince your fellow city councilors to vote for the new community center you campaigned on, or being voted out of office because your views are unpopular, or having a city council chambers filled with angry citizens who oppose your views.
Political obstacles tend to be malleable. Skilled politicians can persuade voters and fellow elected officials to support their goals. Even unskilled politicians can benefit from public perceptions changing for other reasons, or other supportive people being elected. An example from the national stage: many members of the intelligence and defense communities, and some Members of Congress tried for years to make counter-terrorism a top priority for the federal government; it took 9/11 to allow them to achieve their goals and to prove that they were right to begin with.
Legal restrictions are a more fixed form of obstacle to local elected officials. These restrictions are commonly the result of state or federal law. Most people are unaware that, over time, the federal and state governments have gobbled up local decision-making authority on many issues. From education (No Child Left Behind and myriad other state and federal funding and regulatory measures) to drinking water (federal and state governments extensively regulate the treatment and delivery of drinking water, despite the fact that these are commonly locally owned facilities), state and federal lawmakers have substituted their preferences for that of local elected officials. The fact is that local governments are among the most extensively regulated entities in the United States today.
Another area in which local elected officials are constrained by state law is in budgeting. To illustrate the point, during the most recent StepUp Bend session, Bend City Manager Eric King walked us through the city’s budget.
In the 2015–2016 fiscal year, Bend received a total of $142.9 million in revenue. That’s a healthy sum. But of that total, $102.5 million was “restricted revenue,” i.e. revenue derived from enterprise services such as drinking water, wastewater, or stormwater. State law (and, frankly, honest governing), precludes using those funds for other purposes. So, that’s more than one-third of the city’s annual budget that’s off-limits for effectuating a city councilor’s goals.
Of the remaining $40.4 million, $29.5 million was allocated to police and fire services, largely for personnel providing those services. Oregon has exceedingly pro-union collective bargaining and employee pension laws, so unless you want to cut police officers or firefighters (see, political limitations above), Bend is largely stuck with spending more and more on these core public safety functions.
So, you’re left with about $10.9 million in funds — less than 8% — of total revenue that was theoretically uncommitted for FY 2015–2016. Even those funds are mostly spoken for unless a councilor wanted to allow street quality to fall off a cliff, or to abandon important growth-management projects.
All legal obstacles are, in the long run, merely political obstacles. Legislators or voters can change state laws; Congress can change federal laws. But the difficulties in changing any of these laws is such that, for most local elected officials, you’re stuck with the rules you’ve got.
While the restrictions are real and significant, local officials do have room to create policies within them, as City Manager Eric King took care to emphasize. For example, even within the highly regulated world of drinking water, the Bend City Council several years ago made some very contentious and difficult decisions about rebuilding a major water pipeline and the method of treating the city’s drinking water.
So, there clearly remains role for local decision-making, even within the constraints. A thoughtful candidate will be aware of the constraints and take advantage of the policy opportunities that exist within them.
