Detroit Charter Review

The Common Council of the City of Detroit, in accordance with a recent decision by the Detroit Charter Revision Commission proposal approved Saturday, is suggesting that the number of Council members be reduced from nine to seven. Five would be elected from districts, while two would be elected at large. Currently all nine seats are selected at large.

The arguments for and against the change are really rather simple. The basic one in support of the change is that it will ease the cost of governing. The lead idea against the new proposal is that it will of course lessen representation; fewer people will speak for larger populations.

Each idea can be hemmed and hawed over, well, indefinitely. Any time we have the opportunity to lessen government spending ought should be at least looked over and studied. Yet less effective representation, consolidating power into fewer hands, must be seen as a possible deterrent to better government as well. The trouble is that both feelings are rather easily countered, too. Less government spending, if it leads to less overall efficient government, isn't necessarily all that good. But more representation, if all it is is more of the same old, same old, means little.

Which leads to the crux of the issue: it doesn't matter what exact shape the Detroit city government takes if the folks involved aren't good governors. All the hand wrangling which surely will be done in the coming weeks over what precise form the Council should take will mean nothing if there aren't good people filling the spots. Given Detroit's record of selecting her leadership, and it doesn't seem likely that the numbers will matter.

You can change the form of something all you want. If the function doesn't improve, then the process is simply all for naught.