Алистер Смит - The Dictator's Handbook - Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics

The California legislature decided in 2005 to limit salaries for city council members in general cities. No sooner did the state legislature move to impose limits than creative politicians in Bell—some allege Robert Rizzo led the way—found a way to insulate themselves from the “whims” of those sent to California’s state capitol, Sacramento. A special election was called, supported by all five council members, to turn Bell into a charter city. The selling point of the change to charter city was to give Bell greater autonomy from decisions by distant state officials. Local authorities know best what is right for their community, more so than distant politicians who are not in touch with local circumstances. Or, at least, so the leaders of Bell, California, argued.

Special elections on technical questions—to be a charter city or to remain a general city—are less than captivating to the general voter. Of course, if the decision had been made in the context of a major national or even statewide election, the proposition would likely have been scrutinized by many prospective voters, but as it happens—surely by political design—the special election, associated with no other ballot decisions, attracted fewer than 400 voters (336 in favor, 54 opposed) in a town of 36,000 people. And so the charter passed, placing within the control of a handful of people the right to allocate city revenues and form the city budget, and to do so behind closed doors. As best as one can tell, the charter changed nothing else of consequence concerning Bell’s governance. It just provided a means to give vast discretion over taxing and spending decisions to a tiny group of people who were, as it happens, making choices about their own compensation.

Lest one think the council members were stupid as well as venal, it is worth noting how clever they were in disguising what they had done. Should anyone care to ask a city council member’s part-time salary, any councilman or councilwoman could say openly and honestly that they were each paid just a few hundred dollars a month, a pittance for their services. As we have already seen, the bulk of their pay—the part denied to Lorenzo Velez—was for participation on city agency boards. That, as it turns out, may ultimately have been their Achilles’ heel.

As of this writing all of the principal players in Bell’s scandal have been jailed, but not for their lavish salaries. As reprehensible as these may have been, it seems they were perfectly legal. No, they were jailed for receiving payments for meetings that allegedly never took place. It seems they collected a lot of money while overlooking their obligation to actually attend committee meetings. This is to say that the well-paid managers of Bell may end up falling victim to what one might describe as a legal technicality. Outrageous salaries were okay, but getting paid for attending meetings while being absent from them was not. We cannot help but wonder how many government officials are held to that standard. How many senators and representatives, for instance, draw their full salaries while skipping meetings of the Senate or House so that they can raise campaign funds, give speeches, or go on boondoggles?

You may well wonder how a little town like Bell could balance its budget—one of Mr. Rizzo’s significant accomplishments—while paying such high salaries. (Indeed, we anticipate a high probability that once Bell’s governance is cleaned up, its spending will involve indebtedness rather than a balanced budget.) Remember, the town’s leaders got to choose not only how to spend money but also how much tax to levy. And did they ever tax their constituents. Here’s what the Los Angeles Times reported about property taxes in Bell:

Bell’s rate is 1.55%—nearly half again as much as those in such affluent enclaves as Beverly Hills and Palos Verdes Estates and Manhattan Beach, and significantly higher than just about everywhere else in Los Angeles County, according to records provided by the county Auditor-Controller’s Office at the Times request. That means that the owner of a home in Bell with an assessed value of $400,000 would pay about $6,200 in annual property taxes. The owner of the same home in Malibu, whose rate is 1.10%, would pay just $4,400.5

In plain and simple terms, Bell’s property tax was about 50 percent higher than nearby communities. With such high taxes, the city manager and council certainly could pay big salaries and balance the budget, all the while enriching themselves and their key cronies.

Now that we have Bell’s story let’s look at the subtext. In the city, council members are elected, although their election was not contested for many years before 2007. That means that council members are beholden to the voters, or at least the voters whose support was needed to win office. Before 2007 that was hardly anyone since elections were not contested. Since 2007, as it turns out, even with contested elections, it still took very few votes to win a council seat. For instance, Bell had about 9,400 registered voters in 2009, of which only 2,285—that is, 24.3 percent—turned out to vote. Each voter could cast a ballot for two candidates for city council out of the six candidates seeking that office. The two winners, Luis Artiga and Teresa Jacobo, received 1,201 and 1,332 votes respectively, out of 2,285 votes that were cast, but they didn’t need that many votes to win. Speaking generously, election was achieved with supportive votes from only about 13 percent of the registered electorate. We say “speaking generously” because to get elected to the city council in 2009 all that was necessary was to have one more vote than the third largest vote-getter among the candidates. Remember, two were to be elected. The number three candidate had just 472 votes. So, 473 votes—about 5 percent of the registered voters, just over 1 percent of the city population, and only about one fifth of those who actually turned out to vote—is all that was needed to win election. Whatever the reason for the vote being divided among so many candidates, it is evident that election could be achieved with support from only a tiny percentage of Bell’s adult population. This goes a long way to explaining the city government’s taxing and spending policies.

One thing we can be sure of: those on the city council could not have been eager for competing candidates (or even fellow council member Velez) to get wind of the truth about their compensation package. City manager Rizzo had to maintain the council’s confidence to keep his job and they needed his support to keep theirs. He could have exposed how deeply they were dipping into the public’s hard-earned money, which would have sent them packing (as it now has). It is in this need for mutual loyalty that we see the seeds of Bell’s practices and of politics in general. Rizzo served at the pleasure of the mayor and city council. They, in turn, served at the pleasure of a tiny group of Bell’s citizens, the essential supporters among Bell’s considerably larger prospective electorate. Without the council’s support, Rizzo would be, as he now is, out on his ear—albeit with a fabulous pension estimated at $650,000 per year. How best to keep their loyalty? That was easy: promote the means to transfer great private rewards in the form of lavish compensation packages to council members.6

Of course, if all were being done in the open, or if Bell remained a general city subject to control over compensation from Sacramento, Rizzo could not have provided the means to ensure that he would scratch the city council members’ backs and they his. When a leader’s hold on power—his or her political survival—depends on a small coalition of backers (remember the small percentage of voters needed to actually win a seat on the city council), then providing private rewards is the path to long tenure in office: Mr. Rizzo kept his job for seventeen years. Furthermore, when that small coalition is drawn from a relatively large pool—just five council members, elected under a city charter ratified by only 354 voters out of a registered voter population (in 2009) of 9,395—then not only are private rewards to the small coalition an efficient way to govern, but so much budgetary and taxing discretion is created that the folks at the top have ample opportunity for handsome compensation, an opportunity that the city’s top leadership did not fail to exploit.