Charlie Dooley stood in the bacing the Better Together rollout.
There was a time when the former ºüÀêÊÓƵ County executive would have been on the dais in a seat of honor. He was there in 2014, standing alongside ºüÀêÊÓƵ Mayor Francis Slay when the nonprofit organization seeking to combine the long-divided city and county into one government first to study the issue.
But Dooley lost an election to fellow Democrat Steve Stenger the next year. Slay chose not to run and was replaced by Lyda Krewson.
So the two men were bystanders as the grand unification plan was unveiled.
“The devil is in the details,†Dooley told me before the plan was released to the public, sayould support it.
People are also reading…
A few feet away, St. Charles County Executive Steve Ehlmann, a Republican, was walking to his seat. Like Dooley, he has been a general supporter of the concept of a city-county merger or some form of new government that creates greater regional cooperation.
“All I know is that what we have isn’t working,†Ehlmann told me. “The devil is in the details.â€
The details are now public, available for all to see in already filed with the secretary of state’s office. Ehlmann is among many ºüÀêÊÓƵ-area leaders taking a close look at those details to see if the amendment passes muster, or might need a little more work.
“This is the last chance in my lifetime to fix this, and I want to get it right,†Ehlmann, a lawyer and former state senator, told me last week. “Right now I am looking at the language of the amendment for possible unintended consequences.â€
Among those consequences, intended or otherwise, causing the most consternation, is that Stenger becomes the newly formed city’s unelected mayor until 2025.
“Metro Mayor Steve Stenger?†wrote county government watchdog Tom Sullivan. “That’s a scary thought.â€
Sullivan is a frequent Stenger critic who attends more County Council meetings than the county executive does. In fact, the day after l-throated support of the Better Together plan, he missed his ninth County Council meeting in a row.
It’s ironic. Stenger’s inability to work with his fellow government officials is an example of how dysfunctional some of the current governmental bodies in the region are, and yet, the plan that he was loath to publicly support until its details were unveiled elevates him to a position of unprecedented power.
Sullivan is hardly the only critic of that provision.
County Councilwoman Hazel Erby, a University City Democrat, that, “When I saw that, then I really thought they lost their minds.â€
Within 24 hours there was a website mocking the Better Together proposal as Better4Stenger.
The Rev. on, the co-chairman of the Ferguson Commission, was perhaps most poignant of all. Borrowing a phrase from a biblical scholar, Wilson said that it was important to “call the demon by name.â€
And the demon, he says, is apartheid.
By elevating Stenger to be mayor of the new city even after the first election for the 33-person city council is held, the plan leaves residents of the current city of ºüÀêÊÓƵ to be led by somebody they didn’t elect, Wilson points out. And that unelected mayor would be given broad powers to write the charter that could guide the city’s affairs for years.
Here’s how Jake Hollander, who founded , another nonprofit that pushed for unification, explained his criticism in a tweet:
“This is a billionaire backed plan that suspends elections,†Hollander wrote. “Well, that’s one way to hurt an otherwise good idea.â€
All of this criticism of just one of the proposal’s details, some by critics who oppose the merger concept, others by those who support it, raises an interesting question:
Is Better Together open to making its proposal better, or, as ºüÀêÊÓƵ Alderman Megan Green asked last week, slowing down?
Earlier today I sent this letter to expressing concerns over the current merger proposal and asking for more information to be made publicly available specifically regarding the financial projections of the merger proposal.
— Megan Ellyia Green (@MeganEllyia)
So far, the answer is no.
“Policy changes to the amendment at this point are likely to have the effect of unraveling an amendment that carefully considered best practices and good policy,†said Better Together’s director of community based studies, Dave Leipholtz.
(A couple of hours after a version of this column posted online, Better Together announced it had withdrawn its petition to make various “technical†changes. The group says they plan to refile the petition on Monday.)
About those “best practices:†The transition has two phases. First, if voters approve the merger proposal in November 2020, Stenger and Krewson would share power as transition mayors for two years, at which time the new City Council would be elected. But under the Better Together plan, Stenger would serve as mayor of the new city for an extra two years. The same situation would apply for Prosecuting Attorney Wesley Bell and County Assessor Jake Zimmerman. No other relatively recently merged city — not Indianapolis, Louisville nor Nashville — suspended an election cycle for the city’s next mayor.
In Indianapolis, the city most often cited by Better Together organizers as a model, incumbent Mayor Dick Lugar ran for re-election in 1971, two years after the state’s Legislature voted for the Unigov form of government.
The section on extending Stenger, Bell and Zimmerman’s terms even after the new City Council is elected seems a bridge too far. In Stenger’s case in particular, it’s impossible to read the power grab outside of the context that Stenger and Better Together share many of the same consultants. Stenger’s two most recent hires , for instance, are married to employees of Better Together or one of its political cousins.
That’s one devil of a detail.