OPED: Charter changes could prove too costly
SUBMITTED BY: Cathy Kentner
The Lakewood City Council is currently taking public comment on two proposed charter changes that would affect referendum and initiative petitions. One of these changes would require referenda and initiative elections to coincide with either a regular municipal election or a county special election, thus eliminating stand-alone special elections.
Stand-alone elections are the most costly elections to the city so, at first glance, it would seem that this is something every taxpayer should support. However, one must consider carefully the purpose of referendum and initiative petitions and the possible outcome of making these elections less expensive for a governing body.
“Direct Democracy” at times can mean bypassing elected officials to push the agenda of a small group of wealthy individuals. In fact, in Lakewood, someone from out of state could find just two local voters to support an issue, pay anyone 18 years or older to collect signatures and get an issue on the ballot. In the case of an initiative, it could even be timed to specifically cause a stand-alone special election.
Yuck! Surely no reasonable person would want that. Maybe we should just get rid of referenda and initiatives altogether. People need to learn to work with their elected officials. After all, we have representational democracy, which is defined as “a form of government founded on the principle of elected individuals representing the people.” If people express their wishes, surely their elected official will represent them.
Unfortunately, at times, elected individuals fail to represent the people. For whatever reason used to justify it, a representative may choose to act as a “senator” instead of a “representative.” In Lakewood, as in the U.S., we actually do have both. Each of the five wards has two representatives. These ten individuals are elected not by the entire city electorate, but by the electors in their own ward. Therefore, the people they represent are the people in their ward and not the city at-large.
Our mayor is the one “senator” as he/she is chosen from the entire city. What happens when a group of elected officials decides that they know better than their constituency? One likelihood is that a resolution or ordinance gets passed that does not truly represent the expressed wishes of the people.
When a governmental body makes a decision that goes against the expressed wishes of citizens, the only recourse is petition by initiative or referendum. If these processes are “cheapened” then elected officials may just budget for the election, knowing that they have the organization behind them to fund winning at the election.
Direct democracy is necessary in our system to prevent abuses by government. Just as in the criminal system when someone gets off on a “technicality,” we don’t like it but typically understand the need; evidence needs to be collected in a legal manner, you need a search warrant, etc. Rules that are in force for good reasons can be abused by those who have enough organization and/or money behind them.
The abuses, in this case purposely causing a stand-alone special election, should not be used to justify changes to the rules. The charter is written to protect the people from abuses of government powers. Any changes that make it easier on the governing body should be thought out carefully. What may seem at first glance to be a cost saver can actually be deterioration of the democratic process.
