In light of all the excitement in the news about government reform, I think it might be time for us to revisit the founding of our democracy.
Our founding fathers believed in democracy, but wisely recognized that it had its limits. They had just fought against English tyranny. They fought for a government where the “people” had a vote. But they also feared that unbridled democracy would devolve into rule by the whim of the angry mob. In short, they didn’t trust anyone having unlimited power—even the majority. Majority rule is mob rule.
So when drafting the U.S. Constitution, they set up a system of government based on elected officials with staggered terms. And they varied the lengths of the terms. The House stood every two years, so it had to be very conscious of public opinion. But Senators served six year terms with only one third of the Senate up for election every election (and originally, they didn’t even trust the people to elect them directly—they let the state legislatures do it). The idea was that the Senate could stop the whims of the majority and would only be forced to reflect longer held public opinions. And they gave the President a veto that required a supermajority to be overridden. The system brilliantly balanced the public’s need to have a government that quickly responds to public opinion without being overwhelmed by it.
According to Alexander Hamilton’s notes of the discussions, they considered whether the people should have some type of right to recall politicians they didn’t like. The founding fathers decided that they wanted the leaders to govern according to their conscience instead of governing by polling. They gave each elected official a term of office. The only recall was on the day of the next election.
The drafters of the Missouri Constitution (and virtually every other state constitution) basically mimicked the founding fathers wisdom. They have representatives elected to terms of varying and staggered lengths without any recalls. And the state legislature, when setting up the rules for city governments, followed the same model. They made Councils elected to staggered terms without recalls.
But the St. Charles City fathers thought they knew better than John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Our City fathers created a rather interesting balance of power with ten city council members elected to three-year terms. The ten council members are up for election at the same time. In addition, the Mayor serves a four-year term and occasionally, the Mayor is up for election at the same time as the entire City Council. For good measure, they threw in the right of recall. In St. Charles City, elected officials are basically off limits during their first six months in office and six months after they survive a recall. Also, they are “safe” during the last three months of their term. Apparently this is the only window of time during which they have the opportunity to govern. There really aren’t many restrictions on the process, how signatures are collected, the timeframe during which signatures can be collected or anything else that might be important. It strikes me that our City fathers envisioned recalls would only be used in extreme circumstances or in instances of official misconduct. Unfortunately, they were wrong.
So, we find ourselves today facing the first such recall elections in our City’s history. Some folks are wondering how we got here. The most troubling aspect of these recall elections is the manner in which they have been pushed forward. As is often the case, “owning” a Mayor is rarely sufficient to accomplish anything (i.e., St. Peters and O’Fallon). Instead, if a special interest group wants to push a particular agenda, they do much better to finance a majority of the legislative body. Basically some rich Ladue duck hunters decided that they needed a community leader to “front” for them in St. Charles County. They cut a deal with Tom Hughes, a local home builder who is high profile and well-connected in the community. Tom Hughes had his own agenda and it involved St. Charles City. At the behest of Perilous Patti, Tom Hughes financed a slate of candidates in the last City Council elections. Tom Hughes tried his best to win a majority during the regularly scheduled elections in 2004. He was unsuccessful. As a result, Perilous Patti, and she had some trouble funneling money to her friends, hiring her cronies and otherwise diverting taxpayer funds inappropriately. That didn’t really sit well with Perilous Patti or her benefactors. The duck hunters decided that they needed to change leadership of the City Council. They wanted a do-over. The recall effort was born.
Now, this effort has a name – the Citizens Empowerment Committee and a leader in Linda Meyer. Basically, the Citizens Empowerment Committee is a front for Tom Hughes and the duckboys. Linda Meyer is well compensated for her efforts and has taken the reigns of this sham operation. She hired a collection of thugs from all over the St. Louis region who have collected signatures to recall Darling Dottie and Mark Brown for the trumped up offenses of merely addressing an issue raised by constituents and an unfortunate comment taken out of context, respectively. She also appears to be the mastermind behind the bounty program which netted the signature gatherers a dollar amount per signature (dead or alive). As the litigation progresses, stories of signature gatherers who were coerced into affirming signatures they did not witness are certainly troubling. It’s ironic that Linda Meyer has been whining in any publication that will quote her that she has been harassed and ridiculed. She also admits to being paranoid. Well, Linda, I might be paranoid too if I was responsible for this circus. Get a clue – you are being used by the duckboys. You’ll be abandoned too, just ask Shawn Brown. Besides, if you can’t stand the heat…
It remains to be seen how this unfortunate chapter in our City’s history will end. With the entire council up for election next year and a Mayoral election to boot, the people will have a chance to be heard. Hopefully, the people will also have a chance to bring some meaningful reform to the recall process which was so badly abused by the duck boys this past year. Regardless of anyone’s feelings on the idea of a recall election, I think we can all agree that the circus we have experienced is not what our City fathers intended.
On a lighter note, I want to send a special greeting to my sweetheart, Mrs. Spencer and all my readers…Happy Valentine’s Day!
