The Charter Debate: Accountability

Accountability

I want to reflect on some of the words and ideas being used in the current debate about the Charter proposal Amherst will vote on at the end of March.  I say “words and ideas” because I think they are separate things; some of the words used do not clearly represent ideas, and some of the ideas are not represented by words.  I am a strong advocate for defeating the Charter proposal, and over the next few months will try to explain why.  

“Accountability” is a word that Charter proponents love to use.  It leads everywhere and nowhere.  It is a heavy word with a certain ominous ring to it.  It is intended to be a Good Thing but in debate it is wielded like a weapon.  But what can it possibly mean?

Political accountability lies in the public nature of votes and positions on substantive issues.  In Amherst, all sessions of Town Meeting are broadcast live on television.   The votes of all Town Meeting Members on most substantive issues are available on the Town of Amherst website.  Everyone can see how their precinct members voted.  They can also see how regularly their members attended town meeting sessions.  Presumably, if Amherst votes for a Council it too will be accountable.  There will not be any difference between the two.  

Some years ago, it was valid to criticize Town Meeting for a lack of accountability.  Most votes were voice votes, and tally votes were time-consuming and used only on the request of fifteen town meeting members.  The is why I and many others pushed for the electronic voting that now renders that criticism moot.  There is not the slightest difference in accountability between town meeting and the proposed town council.

But there is a confusion in the minds of pro-charter enthusiasts between being accountable and being held accountable.  The second, with its Calvinistic overtones, sees elections as the mechanisms by which voters render judgment on incumbents.  Sometimes, admittedly, this is how voters view it.  But more often the connection between elections and accountability is loose at best.  Most often elections are expression of preference rather than judgement.  In some elections no incumbents run; in other elections (like the recent city election in Northampton) incumbents run unopposed.  Voters vote for candidates they like, candidates they know, candidates they have heard about, and, sometimes, candidates they agree with.  They may vote for candidates because of their positions on issues, but just as often because they admire their integrity and trust their judgment.  This is true for town meeting members and might be true for town councillors.  And if, as is often the case, they vote against an incumbent, they can still admire her integrity and judgment.

Pro-charter voices have also attempted to connect accountability to the scheduling of elections.  Under the proposed charter, voters would vote for five councillors every two years (two from districts and three at-large).  Under the current governance, voters vote for at least eight members every year (or sixteen every two years).  If this kind of arithmetic is appealing to you, perhaps you can parse it to distinguish between the accountability of town meeting and that of town council.  I can’t.

But being held accoutable isn’t a political idea. Maybe it is more managerial , with its roots in the history of bureaucratic organization.  There is something deadening about bureaucracy; everybody is in charge of someone else and also accountable to someone else.  You have your job to do, and periodically you are told how well you have done it.  Like schools, bureaucracies act as though you don’t know how well you have done until a supervisor tells you.  This saps individuals of initiative and responsibility.  Instead of being accountable, one is “held” accountable by someone who has the power either to endorse your performance or terminate your employment.  Politicians who worry about being held accountable tend to subordinate their best judgment to the polls, the twitter feeds, the emails to their offices.  We have seen so much of this on the national level that I cannot believe we would want to see it locally.

Maybe iaccountability is essentially an ethical issue.  What are the ethical implications of acting on behalf of voters who cannot vote on issues?  Do they require acting on behalf of the majority of voters or all the voters?  Do they require councillors or members to subordinate their best judgment to a sense of what the voters want?  How are they to know what the voters want?  Is accountability bending to the will of others and if so, which others?  Perhaps this is the pertinent question for voters at an election: accountable to whom?

And perhaps that is the fundamental issue with accountability:  accountable to whom?  Accountability has deep roots in ethics, religion and philosophy.  The ultimate question is “how should I live my life.” Some locate the answer in some outer authority, while others find it in introspection and reflection.  Similarly, some find accountability in submission to the judgment of others.  Some prefer to speak of responsibility, of holding oneself to the highest personal standards and submitting to one’s own best judgment.  Charter proponents don’t seem to think in these terms but perhaps they should.