democracy – but not the Democratic Party – RIP in Urbana

The April 8, 2008 Cunningham Township annual meeting may go down as the day democracy died in Urbana.

There were three proposed referendum questions on the ballot. Despite there being no legal requirement that such proposals be submitted in advance, a meeting packed with Democratic Party stalwarts defeated all three in the name of “Democracy.” But it seems that the result was ordained more by “Not Originated Here” than by any actual flaw in the proposals. All three proposals were something a thoughtful Democratic voter, as well as many independent voters, might support – but none yet bore the stamp of official Democratic Party prior review and approval.

Here they are in order. The first two were actually proposed from the floor and voted on, while the third never made it that far.

“Shall Cunningham Township and the City of Urbana post all contracts and itemized expenses on their websites so that taxpayers can see how their money is being spent?”

“Shall the voters of Cunningham Township call upon the City of Urbana to place a binding referendum on the April 2009 election ballot asking whether Urbana citizens want to change from the current system of plurality voting to Instant Runoff Voting ensuring the winning candidate always receives a majority of the votes cast?”

“The City of Urbana will commit to a study of the feasibility of the municipal ownership of the city water company.”

The first was reportedly proposed by local Libertarians. However, it seems like good governmental practice. Denying voters the chance to vote on this question will likely inflame conservative sentiment in Urbana, as well as fostering support for the Green Party, which makes a point of supporting governmental transparency, although it didn’t propose this.

The second proposal was a voting method supported by many in Urbana, although it had also clearly had been supported by both peace and Green Party activists. Ironically, such a proposal could lead to solidification of a progressive political agenda in Urbana. However, a progressive agenda without prior approval of the Democratic majority seems to be a threat to the interests of Democratic Party loyalists.

The third proposed referendum actually has been supported in word by Urbana officials, although the results of tonight’s meeting calls into question whether this is anything except nominal support, without any real commitment other than attracting voters who are angry about rising utility costs and erratic service.

All three shared two common factors. First, there is the fact that it was the Green Party 2004 candidate for governor, Rich Whitney, who first called attention to the fact that annual township meetings are viable ways for citizens to gain direct access to the political process under state law, leading to the placement of a number of referendums on the ballot in both Champaign and Urbana in recent years.

A variety of convoluted and tortured explanations were offered by those who argued against any changes to the agenda, which is how such questions are placed on the ballot for citizens to decide and which the agenda didn’t include. Most telling was the fact that a few older citizens were overheard talking among themselves about whether or not any specific proposal was “on the agenda” before voting. It seems they had been briefed to oppose anything proposed by ordinary citizens from the floor, no matter how good the idea might be or whether or not they disagreed with it.

One African-American citizen expressed the notion that the very idea that citizens would organize to place referendums on the ballot was a nefarious process directed at depriving them of their hard-fought right of access to voting. None mentioned failed Democratic Party initiatives to allocate more work to minority-owned contractors. It may be that this policy failure will be blamed on maverick Democratic Party members like Steve Beckett, et al. Unfortunately, the false pretenses that seem to have been deployed to persuade people to come to the meeting – just this once – may indicate less of a commitment to the black community by the Democratic Party than seemed to motivate many citizens tonight.

In the end, a great deal of effort was expended on preventing the exercise of democracy as provided for in state law. All of it seemed to be orchestrated by the idea that only proposals approved by the Democratic city council majority – who happened to simultaneously constitute the township board – are acceptable. It was one of the most disturbing displays of brute political power I’ve ever seen or read of – at least since the 1917 Russian Revolution. In Urbana, it seems that unless one has already persuaded the “central committee” of the value of a proposal, it will now be dead on arrival. Sadly, this result will likely undermine the interests of the Democratic majority more than it will aid it. Many Democratic Party supporters are independent and thoughtful voters, thus are unlikely to be taken in by the tendentious reasons offered by party insiders tonight to prevent adding any referendums on the November ballot.