Tonight the city council could take its first vote on the proposed Business Improvement District for downtown. If it does it will likely pass due to overwhelming support from Mayor Mary Clare Higgins who has her fingers on the levers for some significant players in Northampton's political machine. Higgins' team of allies is a veritable Who's Who of influence, including Dan Yacuzzo, Suzanne Beck, Bruce Fogel, Joe Blumenthal, Pat Goggins, Laurie Fenlason, Judith Fine and Doug Kohl among others. Despite robust opposition on two fronts, one from downtown property owners like Eric Suher, David Pesuit, Alan Scheinman and Frandy Johnson, and the other from the folks at Poverty Is Not A Crime, the BID proposal once approved, has a high probability of ending up in the courts.
Why? The BID petition's signature verification process has yet to be reviewed by an independent authority and other questions have been raised regarding the zoning of various properties within the proposed BID. The ACLU has concerns about the constitutionality of the BID's panhandling language as well. My guess is that the BID will receive six votes in favor, maybe more. How can such a contentious issue that has had reasonable questions raised as to its effectiveness and equity pass with such a majority? How can the BID be approved even though there's been a dearth of quantifiable evidence presented regarding its need and potential impacts? Well, because by and large it is a political decision, not an analytical one. Mayor Mary Clare Higgins is a strong mayor juxtaposed with a weak city council. ["Strong mayor/weak council," is a descriptive term used to define a government where a mayor has heightened adminsitrative and political leverage when it comes to policy making, budgeting and staff appointments. It is not a derogatory term, at least it's not meant to be.]
Included on the weak council are five members, a majority, that almost always vote in favor of Higgins' proposals, councilors like David Narkewicz, Maureen Carney, Bob Reckman, Jim Dostal and Paul Spector. In fact, during the last meeting where the council questioned opponents of the BID, the tenor of Narkewicz and Spector to Scheinman and Suher was so snarky it reminded me of the scene from the Godfather where Frank Pentangeli faced questions from a U.S. Senate subcommittee. But the BID is no fiction and the opponents are not criminals. That said, it does seem as though agreements have been made behind the scenes despite the efforts of some members of the council to engage in a truly deliberative and transparent process. In short the BID proposal is as likely to pass tonight as it was months ago.
Frank Pentangeli and the U.S. Senate
This is nothing new and other issues before the city have been handled in a like fashion, from the disposition of the Northampton State Hospital grounds to the enactment of the Smith College Educational Use Overlay District to the approval of a Hilton Garden Inn behind Pulaski Park. The same players engage in the same processes with the same outcomes. There really are no surprises. From the top down mayor Higgins basically makes a decision and then pushes and pulls the levers of government to see it through. She's only been rebuffed publicly one time to my recollection, when she went to the voters for a general property tax override in 2004. If that override had been left to the council it would have passed easily, thus there is some merit to the notion of direct democracy and Proposition 2 1/2, which basically enables ordinary citizens to act as legislators in order to control how much money is allocated to the city government. Love it or hate it, without Proposition 2 1/2 ordinary citizens would be faced with property tax increases year in and year out, in good times and in bad, under the regime of a strong mayor.
This scenario is not unusal as according to an article published in State and Local Government Review in 2006, modern day mayors, "may be better able to deal with myriad complex issues and crises, set the agenda, and establish the terms of debate." Authors DeSoto, Tajalli and Opheim seem to believe that this is a good thing but is it? A separate 2004 study by Tajalli and Opheim finds, "little evidence of growing professionalism among local legislative bodies." In my view the context is clear, mayors have less to fear from two of their supposed checks, those are the ever declining mainstream media and the local legislative branch of government. This is a good thing?
In Northampton the mayor is paid about $80 thousand annually plus a full benefits package, while a city councilor is paid about $5 thousand annually with access to health insurance. The mayor controls an extensive staff, while the council controls few if any city employees. The mayor's office has a signficant budget while the council does not. The authors state, "Mayors maintain a separate power base and are able to promote and advertise their agenda." Thus while the city council is supposed to serve as a check and balance on the city's chief executive, it lacks the capacity and resources to do so effectively. In the one area where the council does wield some institutional power, the budget process, it lacks the administrative or analytical resources to objectively proffer alternative budgets or solutions. It is as though Northampton has a perennial, "lame duck," city council. This is a good thing?
Citing Pressman (1972) the authors outline his listed preconditions for mayors achieving THEIR goals [all caps mine], "Legal and political resources, which include jurisdiction over vital programs and control over key bureaucratic units that control services; a SUBJECTIVE vision (i.e., a mayor's predisposition to impose an assertive leadership style in order to implement an ambitious agenda); and adequate institutional resources, including staff resources and opportunity to be a full time mayor with a sufficient salary and term length. This third factor implies that being a full-time professional strengthens the mayor's hand. Longer terms (or the opportunity to stay in office longer) would also mean that mayors have a greater opportunity to develop and implement THEIR programs." State governors experience similar conditions, however, some governors are subject to term limits, as is the president of course. This is a good thing.
The authors' 2006 article concludes that, "in general, the American mayor's capacity to govern has increased over the years. The survey data reveal that mayors in both large and small cities increasingly are full-time professionals who are elected directly by the voters and that they are serving longer terms. Direct election has enabled mayors to establish independent power bases that they can exploit strategically as they bargain with councils and appeal to the public." They add, "It appears that local executives largely have been immune from the public backlash against careerist governors and state legislators that has provoked calls for term limits." Why is that locally? Well, in part because only about 35% of the electorate votes in Northampton during a mayoral election, which translates into an even lower percentage of the city's greater population when considering that people younger than age 18 cannot vote. A majority of that 35% have installed Higgins repeatedly as mayor, thus the notion that the same majority would also support term limits for the mayor is not probable.
With a background in the non-profit sector, as a public official Higgins sits on a pedestal in Northampton politics. Absent the implementation of terms limits or other charter changes Higgins could continue to consolidate her power base and sit on indefinitely as the city's chief executive. Under this scenario the city will likely continue to be exposed to deficits and pressures for overrides regardless of federal and state events. Higgins has been spending not saving our free cash for years and not once during Higgins' tenure has the council refused the mayor when she requests additional spending. With a projected $6 million deficit looming the outcome of this administration's and the council's failure to plan is unfortunate. Our kids will make do with fewer teachers and potholes will go unfilled among other municipal contractions. In the end all of the aforementioned are to become part of the mark Higgins leaves on the city of Northampton.
References:
William DeSoto, Hassan Tajalli and Cynthia Opheim, "Power, Professionalism and Independence: Changes in the Office of the Mayor," State and Local Government Review, Vol. 38, No. 3 (2006): 156-164.
