Reining in ‘special authorities’ that don’t represent the people

Lupher

Eric Lupher is president of the Citizens Research Council, which provides factual, unbiased information on significant issues concerning state and local government organization and finance.

Many people expect that the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) will try a second time in the November 2018 general election to gain voter approval for a millage to fund rail, bus rapid transit, and other transit services in Southeast Michigan.  

I am not privy to any analysis that the RTA or others may have conducted following the November 8, 2016 election to know how others interpreted that millage rejection.  Others may have looked at voters voicing displeasure with the type of tax proposed, the campaign’s failure to adequately communicate the benefits to the region of a vibrant transit system, or the region’s divisive political and racial history.

I suggest that another element should be part of the analysis: Voters may have rejected the idea of a tax levied by a special authority governed by an appointed Board of Directors that does not represent every taxpayer in the four-county region equally and for which there would be minimal accountability.

We are all familiar with counties, cities, villages, and townships as local government service providers. These governments enact ordinances, provide a number of services, and levy taxes to fund those services. These units of government operate under similar governance systems based on the concepts of representative democracy: popularly-elected representatives, representing groups of people, charged with making public policy decisions.

These governance systems, with the ability to elect officials who represent the wishes of the majority of voters provide accountability in general units of government. Since the 1960s, courts have required that the elections of government officials incorporate the “one person, one vote” principle in which the officials serve districts nearly equal in population.

However, the “one person, one vote” standard has not been extended to Michigan’s vast array of special authorities. Until now, this has mattered little because most special authorities do not directly levy taxes, but instead simply carry out tasks as collaborative actions among two or more counties, cities, villages, or townships.

Michigan law provides that two or more local governments may collectively provide a service where they have the authority to do so individually. This collaboration across municipal boundaries often involves one or more governments paying another to provide a service, consultation among the employees of collaborating entities, and the prudent use of public resources to achieve economies of scale in service provision.  State law specifically authorizes that single-purpose special authorities may be created for activities such as public safety, transportation, libraries, parks and recreation, ports, and airports, among other services.

The RTA is different.  It is not the product of voluntary collaboration, but a legislatively created special authority. Although organized to serve a single purpose, the Board of Directors has much broader power than is the case for many special authorities. This includes the ability to acquire property, raise taxes to fund activities, and issue debt.

Additionally, the RTA’s governance model is unique. The RTA is governed by a Board of Directors consisting of 10 members. A non-voting representative of the state chairs the board, and nine voting members are appointed by Detroit (one member) and Macomb, Oakland, Washtenaw, and Wayne counties (two members each). While simple majorities are needed for most board decisions, there must be a super majority vote, including at least one representative of each county and the representative of Detroit, to place a millage on the ballot.

This governance structure, along with the rules under which it must operate, was designed to serve certain political goals within the four-county RTA region, rather than ensure equal representation of all people living in the region.

With this board structure and with these vote requirements for specific actions, it is possible for the two representatives of Washtenaw County (as an example), which makes up one-fifth of the board but represents only nine percent of the RTA’s population, to disallow a policy change even if the rest of the board approves it. The large geographies and populations represented by relatively few appointed board members from each participant also may leave many parts of the counties and/or the City of Detroit feeling that their preferences are not reflected in the actions of the representatives.

The governance structure of special authorities, such as the RTA, raises concerns about equal representation and accountability when these bodies represent local governments instead of people, especially when an authority has broad policymaking, borrowing, and taxing power.  

To address this issue would require the legislature to amend the law that created the RTA and any other laws authorizing special authorities with police and taxing powers.  

We recognize that adhering to the “one person, one vote” principle could change the dynamics of special authority governance. If special authorities represent people rather than local governments, it could lead to more partisan boards that are less connected to the local governments within the region, but more connected to the people.  

Additionally, popularly elected board members may not possess the expertise that appointed officials are likely to possess. Still, accountability of government officials to the people being served, a core value in our democracy, should not be compromised for the sake of political expediency.

For more on this topic, see Questions About the Governance of Regional Authorities in Michigan

Bridge welcomes guest columns from a diverse range of people on issues relating to Michigan and its future. The views and assertions of these writers do not necessarily reflect those of Bridge or The Center for Michigan.

Comment Form

Add new comment

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Comments

Kevin Grand
Thu, 10/05/2017 - 12:58pm

Interesting hypothesis.

I would submit that the RTA tax failed because we were tired of being asked to pay for things that those who actually used, really didn't want to pay for themselves.

Coupled with the fact that we are already paying for multiple transit systems with tax dollars (i.e. SMART, DDOT, The Ride & Amtrak) and the fact that those running the RTA viewed us a simpletons who should just give them money while they lived high on the hog.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2017/03/02/detr...

The RTA will try again.

And they will fail.

John Q. Public
Thu, 10/05/2017 - 3:10pm

Or perhaps people don't trust the judgment of those running the RTA. To wit, the link you provided is from March 2017. Here's a story Bridge published about six months prior to that: http://www.bridgemi.com/public-sector/will-metro-detroit-voters-approve-...

I made a comment at 11:47 pm showing that it didn't take a genius to see that coming, but the RTA board either didn't, or else did, but thought it unimportant.

I'm not sure which is worse.

Rex LaMore
Thu, 10/05/2017 - 4:17pm

Don't forget Tax Increment Financing/Downtown Development Authorities. Non elected individuals diverting local revenues for economic development projects.

duane
Thu, 10/05/2017 - 7:56pm

What is disappointing is that the people/organizations that want to spend more of other peoples money have no risk of negative consequences, they can keep putting such issues on the ballot repeatedly at the public expense no matter what previous votes have told them.

I wonder why those in Lansing do at least put some type of moratorium on placing taxing ballot issues once it has been voted on, such it can't be placed on a ballot for two or four or even six years . I understand in Grand Rapids had a vote last year [it passed] on a tax for a new bus line, but they underestimate or over spent, in any case they are talking about request a vote this year for more money [no consequences whether they do such a poor job telling people what the actual cost will be, something like the old bait and switch, and then comeback quickly claim we need more to make what we already spend successful].

It is the old question 'who was driving the bus when it went into the ditch, and who will be driving the bus when somebody else pulls it out of the ditch?' That is a weakness in our government system the none elected officials have no risk of personal consequences when the do things badly, they can't even be voted out of there roles.
What accountability do any of those, such as the Regional authority in south east Michigan or the authority in Grand Rapids have for the decisions and results of their spending of the taxing dollars the spend?

***
Sat, 10/07/2017 - 9:35am

I doubt most people think this deeply about "special authorities" they just don't want to pay for something they figure they will probably never use.