By Norma Damashek
As I stated last time, bare facts come in many shapes and sizes. So do governments.
Today we’ll uncover some basic facts about how government begets government. Don’t be surprised at how many partners are needed for the act. Your role is just to follow the bouncing ball.
The first bounce is on the Declaration of Independence – the pugnacious pronouncement signed by 56 residents of Britain’s 13 American colonies, dated July 4, 1776, proclaiming: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men…”
Now bounce ahead to 1789, landing on a polished gem called the preamble of the United States Constitution: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
One more bounce brings us to President Lincoln’s 1863 Gettysburg Address, which starts like this: “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal…” And it concludes with this: “government of the people, by the people, for the people…”
Obviously, the luminaries of American history who created these documents shared a similar viewpoint about the rightful purpose of government: to ensure just and equitable treatment for all generations; keep peace among fellow citizens; raise the people’s standard of living; oversee mutual and collective safety; and facilitate everyone’s ability to get on with his and her own life.
To them it was a self-evident truth that government served as a dynamic force for human progress (but yes, it would take a bloody war to abolish slavery and a major struggle to enfranchise women).
Nowhere did they suggest that families, churches, nonprofits, charities, rugged individuals, corporate business, or general goodwill could or should substitute for the role of government in the lives of the people. Or that government should be starved to death… shrunk down to the size of a dried lima bean.
But like all human creations, governments require continual oversight and improvements. Far from being sacred or immutable, our Constitution has been modified by 27 amendments, undoubtably with more to come.
One of them (the 10th Amendment) concerns the limits of top-down control: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Meaning that each state has the right to create its own constitution.
Which brings us back to the bouncing ball. Watch it as it lands on the California Constitution, first adopted in 1848 (remember the gold rush?) and overhauled in 1879. Since then it has been transformed by over 500 amendments from a short and succinct document to the world’s third longest constitution.
If you dig deep enough you’ll find a provision in the California Constitution (Article 11) that deals with the formation of California cities.
(FYI: the purpose of grassroots entities called cities is to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of their local hometown residents. Cities can be eithergeneral law cities controlled by state law or charter cities answerable to most of state law but primarily controlled by a local constitution/city charter. In contrast, counties are local entities that generally function as pass-throughs for state mandates in a more top-down enterprise.)
This bouncing ball drops down on the city of San Diego, which – when a small village in 1850 (pop. 650) – was incorporated as a city. By 1931, San Diegans (pop. 150,000) created their own constitution/charter and voted to become a charter city. It’s been many times amended and is still in use today.
What’s in the San Diego City Charter? Nothing as elegant as the historical documents cited above.
The bare fact is that our Charter is a pedestrian compilation of articles and sections laying out our election process; city government system; formation of council districts; power and responsibility of elected officials; rules for city finance, budget, and accounting systems; civil service system; employees’ retirement system; Board of Education powers, duties, election, and districts; and a miscellaneous hodgepodge of provisions about the sale of public land, giving or receiving payment for political favors, disclosure of business interests, amending the Charter, etc.
What’s not in our City Charter? Not a hint to the public or to city officials of the motivation, objectives, or ideals that explain why we exist as a charter city.
Just bounce over to the following core statements from San Francisco and Seattle and you’ll see for yourselves how stunted San Diego’s image and goals seem to be:
* “In order to obtain the full benefit of home rule granted by the Constitution of the State of California; to improve the quality of urban life; to encourage the participation of all persons and all sectors in the affairs of the City and County; to enable municipal government to meet the needs of the people effectively and efficiently; to provide for accountability and ethics in public service; to foster social harmony and cohesion; and to assure equality of opportunity for every resident: We, the people of the City and County of San Francisco, ordain and establish this Charter as the fundamental law of the City and County. “
* “Under authority conferred by the Constitution of the State of Washington, the People of the City of Seattle enact this Charter as the Law of the City for the purpose of protecting and enhancing the health, safety, environment, and general welfare of the people; to enable municipal government to provide services and meet the needs of the people efficiently; to allow fair and equitable participation of all persons in the affairs of the City; to provide for transparency, accountability, and ethics in governance and civil service; to foster fiscal responsibility; to promote prosperity and to meet the broad needs for a healthy, growing City.”
(But heed this warning! Tinkering with our City Charter can be very dangerous to the public health and welfare unless the job is turned over to an independent, non-political, certifiably trustworthy Charter Commission. It’s not a job for political hacks and toadies. More about that at a later date.)
Which brings us the final bouncing ball: The term government automatically signifies power and control. In cities like San Diego it often determines who gets rich, who gets richer, and who gets to pick up the crumbs.
Next time we’re together we’ll look at certain Charter changes enacted during the past decade – particularly the switch to a strong mayor form of government – and see what these changes look like when it all hangs out.
Latest posts by Norma Damashek (see all)
- County Government Laid Bare - November 15, 2017
- Hierarchy of Elected Venerables - October 30, 2017
- San Diego’s Dangling Participles - October 12, 2017
Norma, a fascinating early morning read, particularly the comparison of city charters. Both Seattle and San Francisco’s charters convey a coherent description of what constitutes good governance, San Diego’s not so much. If city charters reflect our civic aspirations and budgets are moral documents, it is not hard to figure out why neither the city manager form of government nor the strong mayor form of government have been able to cure what ails San Diego. There is no civic there, there. That’s a problem. Perhaps that’s THE problem.
I’ve reached the point I’m able to say I’ll read anything Norma Damashek says about San Diego and believe it. Her reminder (I never knew it) that the city charter lacks any grand human statement about government’s role seems to explain the indifference shown by most of its leaders, elected and/or anointed, to processes that might benefit the city’s residents.
I’ve often thought that local institutions like Copley Press, the Chamber of Commerce, the so-called Taxpayers Assn., the United Fund (which chose what charities it would support but which had deals to collect contributions from employees of most major corporations here), and so many, many others were way ahead of their time. With few exceptions government was seen as an aid to private businesses. The larger the business the more they were benefitted.
Now, we’ve seen the Supreme Court Five bless this system with a pronouncement that corporations are people, and money is speech. So… let’s rewrite some of the language that Norma Damashek quotes up above, at the beginning of her piece, so that San Diego’s leading role in top-down, trickle-down government can be established in its charter.
The first bounce is on the Declaration of Corporate Independence: “We hold that all corporations are created equal, that they are endowed by themselves with certain unalienable rights, that among these are the liberty to capture and exploit residents through the exercise of this liberty, and…”
Now bounce ahead to the preamble to the Incorporation of the United States: “We Corporations, being people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish dominance, insure domestic docility, provide for the common defense department, promote our own exceptional welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish our Incorporation as the United States of America…”
One more bounce brings us to President Jefferson Davis’ Confederacy Address of 1863, which starts like this: “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new corporation, conceived in wage slavery and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created to consume and be overcharged…” And it concludes with this: “government by the people, by the people, by the people…”
I guess the nature of the local institutions you listed (UT/Copley Press, Chamber of Commerce, Taxpayers Assn, United Fund) is what social scientists have in mind when they talk about the ‘political culture’ of a place. And the political culture of San Diego is very resistant to change. We’re a big city entombed in a small southwestern town mentality.
It would be great to mold our Charter into a kind of moral document (thank you, Anna) built on laudable civic aspirations but it’s a chicken and egg kind of thing… can we make positive Charter changes when the “of the people, by the people” component is missing in action?
But enough with the negative. Cities have a direct responsibility to make positive differences in the lives of their residents so I’m trying to keep that in mind and keep on truckin’.
In an otherwise excellent essay, the writer perpetuates a common error that compromises any discussion in which it appears. There is no such thing as “state rights.” The 10th Amendment speaks of “powers.” There is an essential distinction between “rights” & “powers.” Only individual persons have “rights,” whereas states & other entities have power, authority, jurisdiction, etc. “States rights” is a slogan from the segregated 1950’s, not a bouncing ball from any part of the American experience. You will not find “states rights” in the Constitution any more than you will find “capitalism.”
Thank you. You make an important point about how the ‘states rights’ issue has been perverted. Not being a constitutional historian or scholar I’ll say no more, except to point out that the 10th Amendment falls under what is popularly known as the Bill of Rights.
I wish I could agree that the states rights issue has been perverted, but it’s simply been invented out of whole cloth. The Bill of Rights protects the individual rights of individual persons & nothing more. The 10th Amendment funnels unenumerated rights through state authority, but no state has the rights thereby protected. Let us render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, but not what is not.
Apparently the SCOTUS thinks differently since corporations are now people with religious rights.
Corporations are creatures of the individual states. SCOTUS is a creation of the people. We the people can change both.
It’ll be uphill for a while but the move’s afoot to return individual rights to the people.
Signed, sealed & delivered.
To “promote the general welfare” – that phrase has been observed more in the breach than in the observance as of late. Today it’s more like “to promote the welfare of those who can afford the most well paid lobbyists.”