Let us talk of Fundamental Transformation of governace structure.
(Note: Peter Galuszka’s post on Commonwealth’s information technology “Behind the Northrop Grumman / VITA Scandals” 30 June 2009) spit into two themes as well as a sub-theme dealing with MainStream Media. EMR addressed the sub-theme on MainStream Media in the “Unbelievable Obliviousness” post of 7 July – FYI, there was an Ombudsman CYA in the 12 July WaPo on this topic. Many of the comments on “Northrop…” addressed the Commonwealth IT issue. The other theme that emerged was Governance Reform, examined here.)
EMR likes Groveton’s goal: The governance structure closest to the citizens governs best. EMR does not, however, think Groveton’s strategy has legs. Giving more power to Fairfax County and then ‘hoping’ they will devolve it further is not realistic. (Some of Groveton’s original comment in the “Northrop…” string is repeated below with EMR comments.)
Fairfax County has a larger population than seven states. It is hardly a “local” – as in ‘close to those governed’ – Agency. Closer than the Commonwealth, but NOT close enough.
At the same time Fairfax County does not represent even half the population of the Virginia part of the Nation Capital SubRegion and covers perhaps 10% of the area.
And that does not address the population or area of the National Capital SubRegion or the Washington-Baltimore NUR. The NUR is the fundamental economic, social and physical building block that impacts every citizen of the NUR not just in Virginia but in the Federal District, and parts of Maryland, West Virginia and Pennsylvania.
EMR, Groveton and TMT all agreed in the “Northrop …” string that lower is better but what does ‘lower’ mean and how do citizens get there?
What the simple “closest governs best” mantra does not reflect is that in contemporary society there are many levels of impact and thus the criteria must be “the lowest level is best so long as it represents all those impacted by the policy, program, or regulation” of the Agency.
In other words: Level of control must be at level of impact.” Since there are often multiple levels of impact, there must be a governance structure that represents EVERY level and a system to share responsibility among levels.
History documents that it is counter productive to assume the highest level should controls except for overarching “self-evident truths” impacting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
This is the nub of the most important element of Fundamental Transformation of governance structure:
In contemporary society there is no single level that is the obvious nexus of control for all issues that are the responsibility of the First Estate.
It is possible to redistribute the powers and responsibilities of Agencies. EMR did that 40 years ago with the Adirondack SubRegional land use control, transport and amenity system that is still in effect (Although not optimum, it works better than many other attempts to Balance conservation and economic prosperity.)
EMR also did the same thing for many functions of governance for NUR and USRs in the draft legislation to restructure governance below the state level in New York state in the late 60s.
Fundamental Transformation means, FUNDAMENTAL TRANSFORMATION.
The issue is explored in more depth in The Shape of the Future but here is a sketch of how to get started:
The Cluster-scale is the LARGEST scaled component where direct democracy is a functional governance strategy. Most elementary schools have a room large enough for the Cluster to meet and discuss key issues. A board of seven or nine can keep track of most issue of importance at this scale. This level of democracy works, we prove it every day. It is hard, much harder than just kicking the issue up to higher levels and then complaining, but it works.
Let Clusters choose what Neighborhood they want to be part of. It will be obvious in some cases but it should not be a foregone conclusion that leads to the Neighborhood having the last word, and then each higher level assuming they are can supercede the lower level and more important or have the last say on issue.
In the same way, Neighborhoods choose what Village they want to be part of and Villages what Community, etc.
Let components of settlement pattern and of governance Agencies COMPETE for citizens instead of exercising the ‘right’ to control those of smaller scale. There would be a buy-in for a set period of years and a cost allocation for disengagement but the potential would always be there to choose some better fit for your Cluster, your Neighborhood, your Village, your Community.
The most important ingredient of the structure would be incentives to create Balance at each scale. For example delegating down taxing powers, level of autonomy and say about what happens in larger components by lower components increases with Balance.
This would be especially important at the Village, Community and SubRegional scales. This structure would give Clusters and Neighborhoods a direct say in Regional facility and infrastructure decisions without NIMBY protectionism.
You do not want it there (NIMBY), OK you can help pay for the added cost of putting the facility in a less efficient location, is an example of getting to the root of many settlement pattern dysfunctions.
It would not be Neighborhood approval of the nation-state defense budget but you get the idea:
Level of decision at level of impact.
If there is shared impact then there is shared decision making. The highest level would rule only on issues fundamental to the Federal Constitution. As Groveton has pointed out, that is the theory now but that is not the way it works.
As EMR pointed out in the “Northrop…” post (with clarification and spell checking):
If one protects the turf of existing Governance Practitioners, there would be little real change. Also, per Groveton’s view, the GA likes the system the way it is — they have control without responsibility.
When EMR was involved in Fairfax politics we found anything that the Chamber, the LWV and the Federation all backed went through the GA without a hitch — e.g. the bond authority for building roadways in the 70s.
In other words, there is no specific difference between ‘city’ status and county status that could not be ‘fixed’ if there was a consensus on the need to change. If there is not consensus, the change is not going to happen regardless of status.
THE BIG PROBLEM IS THAT WHAT EVER ONE CALLS IT, THE 244,000 + /- ACRES OF FAIRFAX COUNTY IS NOT AN ORGANIC COMPONENT OF HUMAN SETTLEMENT.
Fairfax County includes all or part of nine Beta Communities. Fairfax does not just rank between Dallas and San Jose in population (and is 200,000 larger than Detroit), it is also more populous than seven of the 50 states including EMR’s home state of Montana.
After Fundamental Transformation there could be a special fund to erect historic markers for Olde Fairfaxe.
Since these issue were first raised in the “Northrop…” string, there have been references to, questions about and cross postings to Senator Chap Peterson’s Blog. In this Blog, Sen. Peterson seems to not support Fairfax County morphing to ‘city’ status – the same for the need for Fundamental Transformation.
Then on Sunday, 5 July, WaPo did two stories on Fairfax County switching to ‘city’ status and a comment that contends that ‘city’ status would guarantee to more money for transportation – as if more money will mitigate the Mobility and Access Crisis without Fundamental Transformation in human settlement patterns….
Some may have missed a great breath of fresh air in a 3 July WaPo story “New White House Office to Redefine What Urban Policy Encompasses: Agenda May Address Suburbs, Too.”
Bruce Katz at Brookings has been working to redefine ‘urban policy’ as ‘metropolitan policy’ for years but keeps getting sabotaged by his habit of overusing the word ‘city’ and by his staff substituting ‘city’ for ‘Metropolitan Statistical Area’ (or New Urban Region) in their reports and press releases.
In SYNERGY’s Vocabulary Urban policy addresses the Urban area of the nation-state where 95 of economic activity occurs in 2009.
It is time to abandon the idea that “urban” is code for “central city” and for the interests of those citizens with a specific racial or cultural heritage.
If one is to go to the trouble of making a change, make a change that is worth the effort.
………………
For those who do not want to go back to “Northrop…”, here is the nub of Groveton’s suggestion with notes by EMR:
“I think Fairfax needs a two part evolution.
“First, the county needs city status to partly throw off the yoke of GA oppression.
“Then, the new city/county needs to recognize even more granular decision making areas – the existing supervisory districts are close but would have to be adjusted.
EMR suggests that there has been nothing stopping the County from doing this in the past. Every time a sub-county interest has appeared, it has been quashed by the County – e.g. the attempts by Reston to change status. Getting rid of the GA yoke would just put the primary focus on a different level with no difference in impact on the ground.
“Then, there would need to be referenda at the local level. At first, the referenda could be advisory. However, after the process was refined the advisories would become binding.”
Referenda can be useful tools but they are not a substitute for Fundamental Transformation.
“To all the hacks in the GA – The government that governs closest to the people governs best. So, why doesn’t this happen in VA? I have begun to see the GA as “Useful Idiots” – …”
All true, but that does not solve the problem.
EMR has given a lot of thought and experimented with levels of governance number and effectiveness of below the county level in Fairfax County for 27 years (1975 to 2002)and in Fauquier County since then. We hope this clarifies the context and helps sort out the response to the problems that TMT raised in the “Northrop…” and in “A Quick One for Peter” of 10 July.
EMR