As the minutes of the charter review committee’s May 4 meeting note, “A large contingent of city employees, labor representatives, and local residents spoke in defense of the current charter protections and against privatization.” Speakers apparently went so far as to praise “the exceptional quality, reliability and personal touch provided by the city’s current solid waste department,” while “drivers who previously worked in the private sector testified that commercial haulers prioritize corporate profit over service quality”.
In other words, the city’s unions showed up at the charter review meeting and complained about the motives of private companies. This was enough for two committee members to flip their votes and so the matter was only narrowly advanced on a 4-3 vote of the committee.
Days later, Kerri Howell, a longtime former mayor and councilmember, stoked further concerns about what striking the voter requirement could mean. “They are looking at privatizing the zoo,” Howell warned. “Really? That is one of Folsom’s jewels and a major boon for tourism and the education of your children. They also want to turn over many aspects of Parks and Recreation — same comment.”
If city officials, after much review and consideration, determined it made sense to turn over operations of any city service, from waste management to the zoo, to a private entity, why throw it to the general public to decide? Voters elect people to the city council to figure things like this out, after all.
Indeed, by the time the matter came before the Folsom City Council on May 12, union activists and their allies urged the council to reject the recommendation of the charter review committee.
“I think that privatizing public services often results in higher rates, decreased quality of service, and I think it is something that residents should have the right to vote on,” declared a city union spokesperson at the meeting.
Never mind, of course, that if a city council believed that privatization would result in only higher costs and lower quality service, they would probably reject that. Left out of the union spokesperson’s formulation is the flipside — that if public services result in higher rates and decreased quality of service, Folsom’s charter makes it much harder for the city to explore alternatives.
Other speakers declared it was a democratic necessity to have the public vote on matters as consequential as this. But that line of argument suggests voters are in a better position to weigh the costs, benefits and long-term fiscal ramifications of a municipal services contract than professional city staff and the elected city council.
Is that really the case? That seems doubtful. Ordinary voters are unlikely to be as in the weeds about the actual consequences of retaining in-house municipal services versus outsourcing them. It seems only right, as a practical matter, for cities to have the flexibility they need to ensure services are provided in a sustainable manner.
In any case, as The Bee reported, the council backed off the charter review committee’s recommendation and so Section 2.07(D) will stand without being revisited.
The defeat of this charter reform goes to show how just a few words in a city charter — this case, “and being approved by a majority vote at an election” — can make decision-making that much harder and costlier. With that language in place, the hands of city officials will remain unnecessarily tied even if they believe a private entity can provide high-quality city services at a reasonable price.
Sal Rodriguez is opinion editor for the Southern California News Group and a senior fellow with the Pacific Research Institute. He is the author of “Dynamism or Decay? Getting City Hall Out of the Way,” published by the Pacific Research Institute
Banner photo Folsom Dam © Water Alternatives
