"Chance to Shape Civic Framework"

Albuquerque Journal, March 7, 2003

What if we could determine the form of government we want for our community? What kind of government would we choose? Today we have such a rare opportunity. The group charged with writing a charter for the new government created by merging the city and county, is the Unification Charter Commission. They are now considering what form of government to recommend to the voters, and would like to hear from the community on this issue.

Should we stay with the current system, or adopt one that may be more conducive to a cooperative style of leadership among elected officials? Residents of Albuquerque tend to assume that the present Mayor/Council or "separation of powers" system--with the mayor and council usually at odds and with the mayor and department heads changing every four years--is the only form available. However, it is important to be aware that there are other options.

Most communities in our region comparable in size to Albuquerque have a different form of government--one where there is no separate executive branch. In the so-called "unified" form that combines executive and legislative functions, the mayor, elected by the voters, sits on the governing body, playing a facilitative role in creating consensus on policy, proposing legislation, and acting as the community's leader. These communities include Tucson, Phoenix, Colorado Springs, Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin--cities that we sometimes compete with and emulate for their progressive ways and economic success.

In this model, it is the entire governing body, not just the mayor, that hires a qualified manager to professionally administer the departments and employees that carry out city services. Those who live in the unincorporated parts of Bernalillo County are governed by this type of system, widely regarded as more professional and stable in its orientation.

The Charter Commission has tentatively decided that the mayor should sit on the new commission. But they are still discussing whether the mayor will retain his own separate staff and power over the bureaucracy, or whether the staffs of the mayor and council will merge under one manager directed by a unified governing body.

The other issue now before this group concerns the make-up of the new commission. Will it have nine members like the city council, five members like the county commission, or a different number entirely? One concern is the cost of running for office: the larger the district, the greater the cost of direct mailings. This is a factor discouraging ordinary citizens from running, if public financing is not available.

Legislative bodies with larger numbers tend to be more representative of neighborhoods and "communities of interest," but also have a harder time seeing what is good for the community as a whole. Over 200 years ago, Madison and Hamilton debated the same issue of "factions" versus the larger community good, and the answers today are no easier than they were then. As the factionalism that drives us apart intensifies, the need for a sense of shared values grows. One way around this problem is to include some at-large representatives elected, as the mayor is, by the entire community. Another way is to make the districts larger, more like a governing board of a large corporation.

In fact, the merged government would be much like a large corporation in some ways, with over $1 billion operating budget. It seems important to make sure that such a complex and important system, one that affects our quality of life more directly than any other level of government, is well-managed and has a clear sense of direction. It seems important for this system to encourage citizens to participate in meaningful ways in decisions that affect them as well as to be responsive to the longer-term interests of the broader community.

Back in 1974, a local government reform movement took place here that resulted in a new city charter. Both city and county reorganized to add more members to their council and commission, making them representative of districts rather than the larger community. Albuquerque added an elected mayor to provide stronger community-wide leadership responsive to the public. Yet since then, with the run-off system ruled unconstitutional, the last two mayors have been elected by only 9% and more recently 12% of the registered voters. The vision of an elected leader that represents the broader community needs to be realized again.

But beyond that, we must ask ourselves how well this governmental system created thirty years ago is working today. Many think that improvements can be made in the over-all stability of the system, its ability to make and implement policy, its sense of teamwork and working toward common goals. Government structure determines the way public decisions are made and who makes them. The potential strengths of an executive mayor, as we have now, are that he or she is decisive, controls the resources of government agencies, and centralizes power. The potential strengths of a facilitative mayor sitting on the governing body are the abilities to lead through dialogue and consensus building in an atmosphere of teamwork.

We have the opportunity today to reform government again to a model that combines the best features of existing city and county governments. We can hope that our "founding persons" are able to balance competing needs successfully in a way that reflects our community's values. Creating a new government will not be easy because every governmental system has highly motivated vested interests in maintaining the status quo. But it can be done with citizen awareness and support and will have many benefits over the longer-term.

The Charter Commission will be meeting again on Friday March 7 to decide on the form of government. Please participate and make your views known.

– Josephine Porter, President, Albuquerque/Bernalillo County League of Women Voters
–Signe Rich, Executive Director, Shared Vision