Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUnderstanding what the Voter Review is and is not The Montana State University Extension Service is an ADA/EO/AA/Veteran’s Preference Employer and Provider of Educational Outreach. MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE VOTER REVIEW WHAT THE VOTER REVIEW IS & IS NOT.... 1 The Local Government Review process is complicated; its scope and intent are easily misunderstood. But it’s important to know that the review is not a platform for airing discontent or mobilizing change in the ways that citizens sometimes think it is or want it to be.    Many of the misconceptions about what the process is and what it can do stem from a desire to use the process to address complaints with politics, policy, or personality that are outside the legally defined scope of the process. Here’s an analogy that might help clarify the limits of the Voter Review. The process is governed by, and limited to, the statutes laid out in Title 7 Chapter 3 of the Montana Code Annotated (7-3-101 through 7-3- 193, MCA). Imagine this section of the Code is a sandbox. Everything legally allowed by and relevant to the process—evaluating and potentially recommending changes to the power, form, and plan of government—is the sand in this sandbox. You can dig into this sand, redistribute piles of it from one corner to another, or even knock the existing sandcastle down and build a new one. But many of the concerns citizens hope to address through the review, election law, taxes, or zoning issues, for example, are contained in different sandboxes—different sections of the Code dictating the legal methods for addressing those issues. You can’t go to a neighboring sandbox, like the Title 13 sandbox, which governs election law, and take pails of that sand back to the Title 7 sandbox. So, what can it do? The Voter Review process examines and allows for change in two big categories: • A choice of one of the six designated alternative forms of government • The ability to choose between self-governing powers and the default general-governing powers Most of the forms offer some choice between the statutorily designated form of government and various suboptions that can be selected to tailor the plan of government to best meet the needs of the community. But these suboptions are limited and have clearly defined statutory parameters permitting limited and highly prescribed changes in the following three areas: • The relationship between the legislative (law-making) and executive (law-enacting) branches of local governments. Will this relationship be a Council-Mayor form, a Commission-Manager form, etc.? Each form and its various sub-options determine what this relationship looks like and how it functions. • The roles and responsibilities of the executive (mayor or manager) and the commission or council in a handful of specifically defined capacities: o Whether they appoint direct reports like administrative assistants o If they have supervision over boards, departments, or department heads o If that supervision is exclusive or if their supervisory role is limited o Whether the role includes veto power 2 • Aspects of the elections process. This is a big point of confusion because the review involves decisions pertaining to election criteria for local government officials, but none of these decisions have anything to do with changing or modifying election law. (Think of those sandboxes.) The review involves six decisions pertaining to election criteria: o Whether certain officials are elected or appointed o Whether council members, the mayor, or the commission are elected at large, by districts or wards, or by a combination o Whether they serve concurrent or overlapping terms of office o The length of office they serve o How many members are elected or appointed to the council or commission o Whether elections are partisan or non-partisan The review’s promise and potential have to do with building a local government’s capacity for flexibility and responsiveness to change, ensuring thriving grassroots governance, and positioning local governments to adapt and respond to community needs over time. It’s an opportunity to enhance your local government’s ability to provide services in response to changing community needs and demographics, but its scope is limited. Be wary of thinking about the review as a reactionary solution to problems in local government that have more to do with personality clashes, a lack of knowledge or clarity about roles and responsibilities, perceived mismanagement, poor decision making on the part of the few, or a plain old lack of civility. One bad egg doesn’t mean the whole system is rotten. It is NOT a forum for attempting to remove or discipline elected officials, local government staff, or board members. It is NOT an opportunity to address discontent with or attempt to change the elections process. It is NOT a platform for adding, changing, or removing services or challenging local policies, ordinances, taxes, fees, or zoning issues, among other frequent sources of frustration. In short, it is NOT a means of addressing problems you may have with personality, politics, or policy in your local government. The review can be used to examine how efficiently and effectively a local government makes and implements policy; it cannot be used to implement, change, or dispense with any policies or services.  These frustrations may be valid, but they are not within the scope of the Local Government Review and must be taken up elsewhere through the relevant legal and political channels.