Well, I guess there are two ways to look at that. One is that, if you get
broad representation, maybe you get a lot of ultimate support because
almost any element in the community can say, "Well, Joe Smith is on the
Charter Commission, and he would represent my views. If he thinks it's
alright, it's probably alright. It's probably too complicated for me to
understand anyhow." The other side of that same proposition, I guess, is
that if you have broad representation like that you do get some imput,
that's unquestionably true, that you wouldn't get if you had a
limited-in-number, establishment-oriented group to do it. Then, of
course, in addition to the Charter Commission itself, there was that
large group that was an advisory group that must have numbered what, you
probably have the figure, fifty or sixty people. I was a member of that,
incidently, and attended a number of meetings and read into the late
hours many nights the many drafts that came out with the assistance of
the Institute of Government. I think the result was not so much, the
unfortunate result, if you want to characterize it as that, was not so
much the product of the way in which the commission was put together as
the drastic amount of change which the commission ultimately injected
into the issue. A small, establishment-oriented committee might have
come up with not quite so many changes, changes that were not quite so
drastic. They might well have come up with enough changes that the
electorate might not have accepted it. I sort of look at
Page 6 the final results and try to analyze what happened and why
it happened. I really think that the reason the issue went down to
defeat at the polls was . . . Like most election issues, there's usually
no very simple answer. You just can't make a simplistic analysis. I
don't want to over-simplify it. I'm sure there are a number of votes
that went for many, many different reasons against the proposed
consolidation. I think the one thing that really scuttled the whole
effort was that there were just so many changes. Changes that were so
drastic, and, in many instances, so little understood, that the typical
voter said, "Well, that's just more than I can swallow. I could take a
nibble, but they're just about to drown me in the complexity of the
thing. Wpheaval of our entire governmental system. Going to the system
of election of the legislative body for the combined city and county
that's just too much of a change for me to take. I can't absorb it." A
lot of blame has been placed, in the press particularly, to the effect
that this was a vote against high taxes in the outlying districts. I'm
sure, to a certain extent, that's true. I really think that's a
subsidiary cause of what resulted. I think the overwhelming principal
cause was that there were changes too many in number and too drastic in
effect that the general electorate just would not accept. I think, for
example, if we had . . . We had seven members of the City Council and
five members of the County Commission. We had a mayor who didn't get a
vote except in case of ties. I think
Page 7 if we had just
combined those, if we had had a twelve-man, atlarge election . . .
Basically speaking, that's no change at all. Only change you've made
there is you have allowed people in the county to vote for the city
councilmen. You haven't changed anything as far as the five seats
formerly held by the county commissioners were involved. I think if we
had gone to that type of legislative arrangement, this issue may well
have passed. Particularly if there had been a satisfactory selling job
on the special taxing districts that would have been set up under the
charter. In other words, really what I'm trying to say is, Bill, I think
if we had kept the issue simple and gone to the electorate and said,
"Really, what we're doing is no great change except that we're trying to
give you better government. More efficient government. Hopefully at
somewhat less cost, although we can't guarantee tremendous savings. "We
never did try to guarantee tremendous savings. They weren't there in the
first place. Just to say to them, "Instead of having to go down, if you
live in the city as, of course, the bulk of the population of the county
does anyhow, and having to mark two sets of ballotts, one for the City
Council and one for the County Commission and elect twelve people. Just
elect all twelve on one ballot. In the process, this means we are going
to combine the city and county police force. We are going to combine the
animal shelters, and things like that. All that will do is make for more
efficient, better operation." I think there's a good
Page 8
chance that the effort may have been successful.