NOT LONG after the collapse of communism a dozen years ago, Baltimore became a popular destination for visitors from former communist countries hoping to learn how local government worked in America. Baltimore, after all, is the oldest self-governing metropolis near Washington. Here they came to observe how a "real" American city functioned.
These heirs of top-down, absolute control were astonished. Here was the bewildering opposite: The state government legislates criminal law, but local police forces and locally elected prosecutors enforce it. Neither the elected attorney general of the state nor the Federal Bureau of Investigation could intervene at will in local criminal matters. The myriad complex city-state-federal schemes for power sharing were equally confusing and mysterious.
Local government, so different from the old Soviet idea, is the bedrock of American democracy because it gives citizens a voice about those daily activities of government that most affect them - schools, taxes, public safety and public health. Representative councils in the city, counties and towns are the incubators of democracy. That is where citizens and their local elected representatives vigorously discuss the present and future of their communities.
Into this hallowed realm comes the debate over cutting down the size of the Baltimore City Council, the city's deliberative body, and recomposing the Board of Estimates, the city's executive and administrative body. This is not merely about legislative tinkering. It runs to the notion of what kind of democracy we want to practice.
The debate begins with the view that Baltimore's government and most of the city's political system - with each of six council districts represented by three council members - suffer from too little democracy, which leads to under-representation. The old Soviets would have loved that.
What the system needs is 17 single-member districts. The conventional wisdom on reform holds that if a jurisdiction loses population - as Baltimore continues to do - the number of elected representatives should be reduced proportionately. But proportionate to what? To alignments and concepts formulated in some instances more than a century ago? The right question is, which arrangement gives citizens effective and responsive representation, taking into account local circumstances? Though Baltimore's population continues to decline, councilmanic reorganization would offer an opportunity to bring constituents and their representatives closer; single-member districts could reinvigorate and expand this relationship. Smaller districts would enable council members to know more constituents personally while providing greater access for voters. More competition would result. A smaller district would mean lower campaign costs, making it easier for candidates of limited means to compete.
Another benefit could be more inclusion and diversity in the council. Seventeen single-member districts would expand opportunities for new and established groups to participate more fully in Baltimore's political life. Emerging ethnic communities such as the West Indian, Latino and Orthodox Jewish, along with existing communities in the central city and new residents attracted to Canton, Fells Point and Federal Hill, might have greater incentives to participate politically. In such a mix, a Libertarian or even a Republican might be elected!
Finally, single-member districts would offer the best chance for those least advantaged to enjoy more direct representation. Council members have generally been responsive to those most in need of government attention, but the sizes of their districts appropriately require balanced representation. In this diffusion of legislative responsibility, those with little access to expensive legal lobbying assistance or little time to attend City Hall hearings are at a practical disadvantage. Single-member districts with approximately 40,000 residents, compared with the current districts of more than l00,000, would guarantee a more focused voice for these concerns.
Why 17 districts? Because it is an odd number with a built-in majority of nine to eight and an added feature of reducing current council membership by only two.
To get this number, eliminate the position of a citywide elected council president and phase out only one current district councilmanic seat. Abolishing the office of council president is a political bombshell. But it would put Baltimore in sync with virtually all Maryland local governments, the state General Assembly, the Congress of the United States and, with few exceptions, most parliamentary bodies throughout the world - which elect their own presiding officers.
So what about that other body, the Board of Estimates, which consists of the mayor, the City Council president, the comptroller, the solicitor and the director of public works? The board is controlled by the mayor, who appoints the solicitor and the public works director.
The board's fundamental responsibilities and powers should be left unchanged. It has served Baltimore well, providing mayors a management tool for responsible budget and policy formulation. The Board of Estimates has enabled mayors in difficult economic times to implement policies averting fiscal failures that have afflicted other, older cities. Proposals to eliminate mayoral control of the board could hamper its effectiveness. If the membership is to be changed, then consideration should be given to removing the council president and public works director. A new board would be composed of the mayor, comptroller and solicitor.
It has never been clear why the council president, whose primary responsibilities are legislative, should serve on the Board of Estimates, an arm of the executive branch. Eventually, all important measures, including the city budget, must be considered by the City Council, where the president and the council have oversight and final approval. The council president's membership on the board blurs the lines of authority between the legislative and executive functions and should be looked at carefully.
There is also no good contemporary reason for the public works director to continue service on the board. The director's responsibilities are important but no more critical than the police commissioner's or the fire chief's. In contrast, the comptroller, who controls the city auditing function, should remain as an independent watchdog to ensure that city policies and finances are properly managed. The city solicitor's membership is imperative because so many matters considered by the board have legal and contractual implications.
From a citizen's standpoint, the best reason for preserving an efficient Board of Estimates is that it conducts the public's business in an open forum. Ordinary citizens, businesspersons, labor leaders and elected officials can come before the board to protest or support certain policies and decisions. So, as the saying goes: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Reform and change, particularly when applied to legislative redistricting and government reorganization, are always a challenge to democratic governance. They involve a complex human mixture of politics, public service and personal concerns. It is not the neatest or most orderly of processes, but neither is democracy.
Peter Marudas, a former reporter for The Evening Sun, was an aide to three mayors - Theodore R. McKeldin, Thomas J. D'Alesandro III and Kurt Schmoke. He also served as chief of staff for Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes.