I’ve been hearing rumblings, but yesterday at the Common Council Organizational Committee (CCOC) there was a proposal to reduce the number of committee members on ALRC. Generally speaking . . . this is bad.
Apparently, we will be seeing more and more of these reductions coming from the mayors office. And it got me thinking about what do we want to see in the committees. I think there are some basic values we need to keep in mind when reducing the size of committees.
1. Diversity of opinions. If you have 5 or 7 voices on a committee I think you lose good discussion and a diversity of opinions on a committee. If 3 or 4 people show up, can you really have a robust discussion? I can see people putting off decisions to get more participation and it slowing things down.
2. Decisiveness. If there is a 5 member committee, 3 people can make a decision, so you can end up with a 2 -1 vote what does that really tell the decision makers looking for guidance from the committee? If you have a 9 or 11 member committee you might at least get a 4 – 1 vote which tells you something different.
3. Negative Quorum issues. If you have a 7 member committee, then 4 people are quorum, so 2 people could make a decision (block something from moving forward) and therefore can’t talk to each other about anything on an agenda if quorum shows up. That makes it difficult for committee members to function and causes all kinds of suspicions about people breaking open meetings laws. And, if two people want to work on a proposal for the committee they have to become a committee and publicly notice the meeting. And if you see them having coffee or a beer at the bar, could they be breaking the law?
4. Diversity. The fewer seats there are to fill, the fewer people of color that are likely to be represented.
5. This won’t help quorum. If your committee meets 24 times a year, twice a month, even the most dedicated are going to miss a few meetings. Having a larger group of people means you have more options for a critical mass to show up.
6. More alders, less citizens. As the committees get smaller, if they want 2 or 3 alders on a committee there are fewer and fewer citizen spots to be filled. And some committees could get really lopsided if there are 3 alders and 4 citizens. Additionally, that limits who can chair the committee to 4 people. So, when you sign up for a committee as a citizen, you may end up being the chair if you serve for any amount of time. What if the 4 citizens don’t have those kind of skills but have other skills?
Now don’t get me wrong, a 15 member committee is too many, at that point, its hard to get a word in edgewise. I think 9 or 11 are optional. 13 might be acceptable, but after that it gets a little silly. I once was on a city committee that had 25 members . . . what a joke!
So, I agree there may be some committees that could be reduced in size, but I don’t think we should have committees that are 7 or less.
Also, I was hearing rumblings of another committee on committees. I served on 2 or 3 of those in my 8 years. I definitely remember 3 committees but don’t remember if I actually served on the third. Attempts to eliminate committees are pretty futile, but there is always a reason to review the committees. Looking at the appropriate number of alders on a committee is a good idea since changes have been made over the years. Looking at what might make our citizens more effective would be awesome. People who want to serve need to have more training in many cases. Reducing the size of the largest committees makes some sense, but removing 2 or 4 people from 20 or 30 committees would reduce citizen voices in city hall by 40 – 120 and I don’t think that is the problem with the committees. I think we have other issues that could be addressed first.
Brenda, why is a reduction being proposed? One of the features of the former administration that I had difficulty with was its purging of citizen members who held opinions different from the mayor. I did not consider that democratic. If there are three people in a room, I am not surprised if there are at least four opinions. Madison prides itself on being a participatory democracy.
On the other hand, I’ve asked some very talented well-informed people why they do not apply to be on a city committee and am told that they do not have the time. So, I can see that there can be good arguments for both sides of the issue.
So, there seemed to be two issues. One was that they seemed to think this would help with quorum, which I don’t understand how.
Second, I think, was that they thought it might be more efficient. I also didn’t understand that.
As someone who’s observed ALRC meetings for more than three years I can
confidently say that reducing the number of members on this board is a
terrible idea. The board is dysfunctional, but it isn’t because of the
size. Certain members of the board, some who have been on it for far too
long, need a lesson in city and state alcohol ordinances. The ALRC also needs to adopt a series of guidelines that they can refer to when issues such as sidewalk cafes and beer gardens come up. There is so much inconsistency and confusion whenever these two issues come up.