Every child in America is taught that our Founding Fathers wisely enshrined checks and balances in the U.S. Constitution. The term checks and balances is credited to the French political philosopher Montesquieu and was used in the Federalist Papers in the lead up to the Constitution’s ratification. Federalism and the creation of three independent branches of the national government set up internal regulations designed to promote power sharing amongst government officials and agencies.
The principle of checks and balances is premised on the separation of powers model for governance. In the city-states of ancient Greece, Aristotle was the first to discuss the “mixed government” model. In the early years of the Roman Republic, with its Assemblies, Consuls and Senate, the system first operated on a mass scale. The justification for checks and balances was famously articulated by James Madison:
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
As the above quote indicates, the compulsion towards tyranny is best restrained by systematic political self-interest.
While often discussed in reference to the federal government, the separation of powers model is rooted at the local level. As cities grow and the ranks of elites within them swell, the power structure comes under increased pressure to be more inclusive. The conflict is generally framed as a rising class coming up against an old guard. Because the framers of our government knew that such was inevitable in a growing nation, they provided us with this framework for inclusive democracy. As such, structural reform and growth go hand-in-hand.
With Orange County’s largest population, Anaheim is a rapidly growing city of 350,000. The problems the city faces at present are largely the result of imposing a misfitted governing structure. Today, significant areas of public policy are colonized by one or a number of special interests. The politics of the city are mired in conflict because policy making in these areas do not respond to public opinion. Whether this is a perception or otherwise is beside the point; there is a democratic disconnect that makes the city incoherent and not credible. Two issues in particular, public safety (policing) and economic policy, highlight the problem of power in Anaheim.
The Anaheim Police Department is incredibly isolated from the city’s electorate. Its attitude towards public criticism gives rise to a breeding ground for negligence and insubordination. This culture is costly to taxpayers and it starts at the top. The union’s contempt for the democratic process encourages the street officer’s contempt for citizens. APD is accountable only to a three vote majority on the city council. When it succeeds in lobbying, the responsibilty is spread amongst the different council members and their different votes. The public is forced to hold the police accountable through the politics of the council, but it takes a specailized lawyer to comprehend the politics of the council, which in any event can evade accountability. APD’s union, of course, spends thousands in every election cycle to maintain its monopoly of power over public safety in Anaheim.
Economic Policy is not monopolized by a single special interest but by a coalition of elite business interests loosely associated with the Anaheim resort area and its large venues. The money behind this group is active through the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce and SOAR (Save Our Anaheim Resort). In doing so, a small mostly out-of-town minority dictates much of the agenda at City Hall. The selected resort interests use the city’s credit and general fund to upgrade different aspects of the resort district. Forgoing the risk mechanism (moral hazard) inherent in private financing, the public finance schemes have negative consequences for the local economy. Publicly financing the construction of luxury hotels, for example, would likely lead to the destruction of many small businesses within the motel industry. Despite the public’s wide-spread opposition to such schemes, the system does not respond and the resort interests maintains a pro-subsidy majority on the City Council.
In the coming months, I hope to discuss a number of possible solutions to Anaheim’s democratic deficit. Reform prospects include: district election, a division of legislative and executive authority, increasing the number of city representatives, and the creation of neighborhood planning commissions. At the last council meeting, Cynthia Ward discussed the challenges an individual faces when taking on local government. Her comment and this topic have led me to conclude that among all the problems faced by the city, the absence of political staff is paramount. The city staff is a bureaucracy that should operate to enforce the laws, not make them. Public policy must be in the hands of the City Council because it represents the people. However, the council members serve part-time and each, including the mayor, is limited to a single part-time aid. This makes it impossible to, for example, compare different local governments, review political theory in the Federalist Papers, and accordingly propose reforms.
In closing, the video below illustrates how little democracy has come to matter in Anaheim. Mayor Tait’s confrontation with an outside consultant hired by city staff shows how the public will is thwarted by undemocratic and un-transparent institutional players. If for some reason it does not show up below, you can find it here.
Well done, Mr. Lamb. You could make a career out of this.
他妈的我的生命
Bravo! WELL written sir!
Don’t forget what happened what someone DOES stand up to them!
A further aside about your fourth (text block)- Do the widely maligned Beach Blvd. Hotels have to collect the same TOT (And how about ATID? LOL) as their Resort District brethren, with scant if any of the consequent benefits? That’s my bet, I’ll check-
Nature may abhor a vacuum, but not so Staff, whose agendas, empires,(and comp packages) will find a fertile growth environment under a pliable Council steered more by political $upporters than a pitifully non-participating public.
Either way, a superseding benefit going to one’s competitor could still put one under. Whenever I have a question about TOT I go through Cynthia’s posts.
When the city faces-off with Fortune 500 (ish) companies, something it does often and terribly, the taxpayer is represented by a handful of part-timers.
OR HOW ABOUT THIS: Compare the number of hours billed to Moreno and co. by private counsel during the drafting of the MOU, to the number of hours over a Labor Day weekend, which is what Anaheim’s MAYOR, also part-time, and aid were given to review the deal.
concerns->election->Council Majority->[REDACTED]->policy
“concerns->election->Council Majority->[REDACTED]->policy”
Brilliant.
In an Underpants Gnomes way!
Lamb, making good sense once again. Several kudos, sir.
Magisterial essay. Thank you. I am looking forward to follow up ideas.
Fantastic post. I look forward to more.
Wait! ALL the politicians in the city are part-time and all they have is a part-time aid? How many documents are left unread? What is the budget of Anaheim?
Someone is going to prison. Why even have an election? Whoever is in charge is a criminal, you can’t prevent a mayor from being mayor, no valid law could make the situation in AnaCRIME legitimate.
The only question I can attempt to answer is the third one- the upcoming Budget-
http://www.anaheim.net/title/Finance/Financial%2FBudget+Documents/
Is $1.6 Billion overall, about $260 Million in General Fund expense (the stuff you expect from City Hall).If you start exploring, I would suggest a pot of strong coffee, and a pillow to kick, so you don’t punch your laptop! If that’s still not enough masochism, try the (718 pg ) line item supplement-
http://www.anaheim.net/images/articles/467/FY%202014-15Supplemental%20Schedules%20and%20Line%20Item%20Detail_Adopted_FINAL.pdf
which is MORE frustrating for what is MISSING, than for what is THERE, namely ANY explanatory FOOTNOTES, when they list over 35 items, totaling over $24.1 Million, as ” 7821 Misc. Professional Services”.
There’s another BUNCH of over 47 similarly opaque descriptions, such as-
SubRecipientsPayments Intradpt Admin/Oh Fm
Host Fee Intradpt Othr Opr Fm
Misc. State Grants
Misc Federal Grants
I don’t know if they used the same accounting rules as the Great Park?
I suppose it should be conceivable that someone was able to read something.
Oh, it’s quite readable, whether it’s at all comprehensible to anyone beyond the producers is a different question. Is that really even the intent anymore, or has it all become merely pro forma?
This year’s budget hearing ‘extravaganza’, with introductory VIDEOS, (narration-less, information-less, feel-good commercials, with deafening music) to fill the space of (or displace?) time previously spent with actual financial and operational details of HOW TAX MONEY IS SPENT, seems to sadly indicate the latter. Transparency (as defined by Orwell).
NEW this year the pre-announcement of the SCHEDULE of Department presentations, was DROPPED, perhaps trifling to most, but consider that the few Citizens interested, had to digest and prepare for the WHOLE document, vs the presenters only part. Also notable among ALL large financial items before the Council, (GardenWalk, Budget, Convention Center Expansion) THE (explanatory) Workshops, AND THE VOTES are at THE SAME MEETING, leaving only 1-2 hours between to digest new information, or answers to public comments questions.
AND, FORGET ABOUT THAT if work or family considerations prevent LIVE participation! There is little if ANY reason why VOTES cannot be held the week AFTER the presentation / hearing, EXCEPT the willingness to allow it. If ‘informed consent’ isn’t BECOMING superfluous, in Anaheim, it’s being MADE superfluous!
Reforms to the governing structure although necessary may not achieve the goal of inclusive democracy, as the power of money has corrupted the electoral process. It produced a council majority unwilling to seriously consider reasonable questions to their agenda, resulting in inadequate prioritization of needs and use of resources, including the distortion of the role of the police. What is your opinion of the role played by the political parties?
In recent years, I’d say neither party has much to brag about with respect to Anaheim.
Maybe a cause and/or a symptom of the way the city is run?
At present, I don’t know, it is quite the quandary. Do you know?
As an outsider of the parties structures, these are some my observations :
1) the good govt factions in both parties have been excluded from relevant positions, except for Mayor Tait .
2) both parties are at fault, but the GOP has a larger responsibility by failing to recognize demographics change, and allowing the development of Pringle type of politicians.
3) Dems (Galloway/Daly?) seems to have played a role in Pringle’s power consolidation. Their support of district elections was a positive step.
4) the liberal/conservative dichotomy may prevent the good govt forces to remain united at election time.
Among the several essays on this subject, Greg wrote a good one similar to yours:
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2013/05/theories-of-anaheim-part-1-theories-of-cause/
Thanks for bringing a fresh perspective to the Anaheim phenomenon, and for continuing the dialogue to find solutions.
Clearly Greg and I are both skeptical! But I’m not going to pretend I know enough to say “Anaheim under Disney”. I don’t even see Disney factoring into much of this; it could very well be the case that Disney is not political enough; don’t hear much from those parts.
As for Disney not being political enough, perhaps take a look at the names of members on the SOAR website, and then compare with board and commission members on the City website. ( And that’s only the major SOAR listees.) Not approaching the Disney ideal of the Reedy Creek Improvement District in Orlando (Google it!) but not trivial or neutral either.
I love the way Ricardo says stuff. Raises the intelligence level of the blogosphere and Anaheim as a whole by volumes!
Your bio is inaccurate Daniel. You cannot legally practice law in California because you failed to pay your dues. Greg’s bio still says he is the DPOC North vice chair. He isn’t. If you guys want truth, justice and the American way, start with a little honesty
I don’t know anything about Mr. Lamb’s status but if you’ve been admitted to the Bar (anywhere, actually) you can call yourself a lawyer.
Of course I am still an attorney! Geez, I hope friggen so given the debt I am in because of student loans.
As long as what I am doing does not constitute “practicing”, I do not owe the State Bar a darn thing.
CA state bar is a mere regulatory agency, it does not operate in the interest of present and future attorneys.
Thanks for the reminder, stranger! I had been meaning to update my bio, but hadn’t gotten around to it. I did it as soon as I read this, so you can feel some sense of accomplishment for precipitating it.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/04/the-jobs-crisis-at-our-best-law-schools-is-much-much-worse-than-you-think/274795/
Now that you got me started Reaper, no lawyer should pay dues until those responsible are held accountable. Largely unnoticed, this is quite an unprecedented and consequential scandal that will forever change the profession. http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/job_market_for_would-be_lawyers_is_bleaker_than_it_looks_analysis_says/