February 9, 1996 (Published in The U. P. Post, Houghton, Michigan)
In general, I opposed these governmental-centralization proposals. I argued that the claims of the proponents were virtually always exaggerated, and, not infrequently, these were fundamentally dishonest. For example, "Cut and Cap" and Proposal A were billed as "tax relief." Yet, it was clear that total school spending (and taxes) would increase significantly. Because the elderly are more likely to vote than the young, major claims were directed at senior citizens; school finance "reform" would assure that they would not be "taxed out of their homes."
In fact, no group has been more adversely affected: Reductions in their property taxes have been largely offset by consequent reductions in their homestead property-tax credits, meaning that many, for the first time, confront positive state income-tax liabilities. Drawing on their assets (accumulated over their lifetimes by saving out of their taxed earnings), consumption expenditures of the elderly are high relative to their incomes, meaning that they bear a disproportionate burden from the fifty-percent increase in the sales tax which, with the reduction in the homestead credit, has largely financed the reduction in property taxes and the increase in school spending.
While I objected to the dishonesty with which these proposals were being promoted and to what I viewed as undesirable and unfair redistributions of tax burdens, my most fundamental objection was to the shift of power from local school boards to state government. No public function is more critical to the very nature of our society than education. To abdicate control of education is to relinquish the most precious inheritance, those values which define us as a people, which we bequeath to our children, our grandchildren and the children of our communities. Already substantial control has been seized by centralized organs of the state, rendering progressively more meaningless the ostensible powers and responsibilities of local boards of education, but these proposals represent a major further step in this profoundly disturbing direction.
Many people attending these meetings objected to my advocacy of retaining power at the local level by arguing that the tyranny of local governments was more serious, and more immediate, than the tyranny of state or national governments. State and national governments don't punish local opponents of proposed actions by denying them contracts and business patronage. These higher-level governments don't rig the electoral process, with repeated ballot proposals and manipulation of election dates and polling places, until they secure the outcome which they desire.
While these complaints about local government are all too often valid, those who advocate the centralization of power as corrective of local tyranny fail to realize that abuses of power at the state and national levels may be less visible but ultimately are even more corrupting. Establishing (or reestablishing) citizen control over local government may be difficult, but securing any significant control over higher-level governments is an even more daunting task, and one much less likely to be successful. In short, if citizens are unable to establish their sovereignty in their villages, townships, cities and school districts, they have no hope of establishing their sovereignty over the organs of government in Lansing and Washington.
I recount these discussions of several years ago in light of recent meetings which I have had with citizens who are profoundly dissatisfied with the actions of their local governing bodies. One case involves a township in which the board has refused to take action to curb the illegal trespass of its tax assessor. Anther involves a township supervisor and board who entered into a contract for construction of a private landfill on township property. One involves dissatisfaction with a local school board's decision concerning the siting of a new school. And two concern bonding and millage proposals for the construction of new schools.
The litanies of complaint expressed in these meetings are virtually identical: Members of the elected governing body are nothing but tools of the administrators. The "establishment" uses illegal, or at least unethical, and dishonest means of circumventing the will of the people.
I fear that these good citizens have not been entirely pleased by my response to their generally well-founded disaffection for their local overlords: Ultimately, they have only themselves and their fellow citizens to blame. Voter turnout for school-board and other local elections is horrifyingly low, unless these elections happen to coincide with national elections, with the consequence that those with a direct, vested interest in the outcome wield disproportionate power at the polls. For example, fewer than 20 percent of registered voters have participated in recent school-board elections in one major northern Michigan city, and, with one exception, every person elected has been a family member of a teacher or administrator or a retired teacher or administrator.
While it might be possible to overturn a blatantly illegal millage election, void an illegal contract or secure prosecutions for official misconduct, the fundamental objections of these citizens concern matters of policy. The fact that a specific millage proposal was placed on the ballot or that a specific contract was signed signifies that citizens have lost control over their local governing body.
I sympathize with the plight of conscientious citizens who have taken seriously their civic responsibilities, who have voted and participated in local government and yet found themselves subject to local tyranny. However, the solution, ultimately, will not come in the form of relief granted by courts or by higher levels of government. Rather, these citizens must redouble their efforts to reestablish their sovereignty over governments at all levels.
The apathy of the masses and the vested interests of the few conspire to threaten the liberty of all.
Stephen P. Dresch, elected to the Michigan House of Representatives in 1990, was an unsuccessful 1992 Congressional primary candidate. A Ph.D. economist (Yale), he is former dean of Michigan Technological University's School of Business and Engineering Administration, research scholar at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (Austria), chairman of the Institute for Demographic and Economic Studies, director of Yale University's program of Research in the Economics of Higher Education, and research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research.