As one who has labored in the vineyard of local government for many years it long ago became apparent to me that there was urgent need for improvement in our governmental techniques in this great and dynamic metropolitan area.

Multiplicity of local governments, overlapping of functions, lack of cooperation, coordination and integration between governmental units and obsolete structural organizations abound in our political scheme of things in this area.

As a young man out of law school in the early thirties, I remember that very splendid legislative report prepared by Griffenhagen and Associates on the need for consolidation, efficiency and economy in our local governments in this area. That was about a quarter of a century ago. How much progress have we made in achieving these goals since that time?

That report indicated at that time and it is even truer today that there are several fundamental barriers, aside from suburban reluctance, to the development of satisfactory political structures on a metropolitan basis.

The first barrier is our Revenue system. The Illinois revenue system, as delineated in our State Constitution and interpreted by our Courts, is a tremendous drag on our local government effort. It is inequitable in its application, it permits great segments of our wealth to escape taxation, it is unenforceable in its provisions and it has brought about the greatest proliferation of governmental units on the local level of any state in the union.

Closely related to this problem is the inadequacy and lack of uniformity of our assessment practices. At the present time there is great disparity in this respect in the five counties located in this Metropolitan Area; it is obvious that a prerequisite to the establishment of any multi-county tax supported governmental unit will be that valuations, the kinds of property to be taxed and the assessment procedures be similar in application and scope, so that all taxpayers will bear their fair share in the support of local government, regardless of what county they may happen to live in.

Another barrier to effective metropolitan government is the unnecessary multiplicity of governmental units, not only in Chicago but within the suburbs themselves. In suburban Cook County alone, we have 134 elementary school districts and 26 high school districts. This, according to modern educational standards, is probably 125 districts too many. Most every educator will tell you that the unit school system, where grade and high school are combined, will turn out an educational product superior to the student trained under the dual method. But, by and large, because of bonding power limitations, we have not been able to achieve proper school district reorganization in Cook, Lake and DuPage Counties. Also, we find many elementary school districts in these Counties with assessed valuations too low to underwrite adequate school programs. At this time there is nothing, other than lack of understanding of the problem by the citizenry and local prejudices, to prevent the consolidation of many of these elementary districts within a homogeneous area. Such a step would eliminate the disparity in their taxable wealth and would make available to all of the children a good education.

And what justification is there for continuance of the antiquated township form of government, and the recent expansion of the powers of the township into the water and sewer business; and how can we justify the many small park districts and sanitary districts that proliferate this area? So if the suburbanites themselves desire to achieve structural improvements and better functioning local governments to serve their needs, they have within their own areas a real task before them.

Another important barrier to progress in metropolitan affairs is the tendency to believe that area-wide problems can all be solved by the creation of additional "super-governments" to take over what are essentially local functions. There is no reason to believe that the creation of new units of government, insulated from the people they are designed to serve, can really solve our problems.

Let's consider one proposal of this nature. The very able Sheriff of Cook County recently stated, and I trust I paraphrase him correctly, that "what Cook County needs is a metropolitan police force; that there are about 100 cities and villages in Cook County, each with its own department; that crime knows no geographical boundaries and that for the purpose of better police protection and for efficiency and economy these hundred odd forces ought to be integrated into one metropolitan agency." And the suburban officials promptly retorted "nothing doing," or something akin to that. Now why do they react in this manner?

Let me cite a quick example. Some years ago, just outside the limits of the Village of Maywood, in an unincorporated fringe area, one of the largest handbooks in the County was operating high, wide and handsome. Every now and then a token arrest was made and the metropolitan press would carry articles telling of the handbook in Maywood that had been raided. We operate in our community in the belief that if the village fathers do not want to permit gambling or vice it just cannot exist, at least not on an established basis. Our citizens would inquire as to why we were permitting this handbook to operate, and the matter was generally quite annoying. So the Board of Trustees asked the Village President to write to the then Sheriff of Cook County suggesting that he close this somewhat extra-legal establishment. He wrote him once, he wrote him twice, (registered, return receipt requested), he wrote him three times over. No response was received.

We finally became quite discouraged and, since the legislature was then in session we were able, with the help of some legislators whom I see in the audience today, to get the annexation section of the Cities and Villages Act amended so that we could annex to our village the fringe area in which this establishment was located.

The bill became law on July 1st of that year and within about fifteen days thereafter the Village Board adopted an annexation ordinance. Within five days thereafter that handbook was permanently and irretrievably out of business. In this instance, we were not close enough to the chief county law enforcement officials to obtain the responsive kind of government that we desired. Bigness has that tendency, and the suburbs fear that the metropolitan police, plan might possibly foist upon them police officers who likewise might not have, shall I say, a sympathetic understanding of the desires of that local community for unhampered law enforcement.

This, of course, does not mean that in this day of radio and improved police force techniques there cannot be developed a more cooperative and coordinated police operation in the metropolitan area. Nor does it mean that some broader based governmental (Continued on page 11)

* Statement to the Annual Membership Meeting of the Civic Federation, Palmer House, Chicago, Illinois, October 17, 1955.

4

METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT
(Continued from page 4)

units may not be necessary to deal with other specialized problems. It does mean however that we can't rely on this kind of panacea which merely moves control out of the reach of local authorities, to solve what are fundamentally local problems. There are plenty of problems such as water supply, drainage, sewage and transportation which must be approached on a metropolitan basis; let's concentrate on these first.

Further, I think that, despite all that has been said and written on the subject, there is still a real dearth of information about what it is that we are really trying to do and what we have to deal with. One reason for this, of course, is that this metropolitan area of ours is growing so fast in all directions that data is obsolete almost as quickly as it is compiled. Another factor is that because of suspicion or mistrust, or maybe just lack of time, the people who manage our local governments and who are faced with the practical problems in their day to day operations, have not spent enough time sitting down together and trying to work these matters out to their mutual benefit.

I think then that we ought to have —long before we reach the legislative stage—a careful examination and evaluation of our complex governmental structures within this area concurrent with broad public discussion. I think, further, that we need a comprehensive study of its population, commercial and industrial trends, and, third, we need an inventory to bring into focus both the resources and the needs of this metropolitan area. As to those matters that require engineering studies such as water, sewage and drainage, I believe that these problems should be fully and comprehensively engineered, with the feasibility of the various possible solutions spelled out.

We in the suburbs, for example, like Chicago's recent approach to the solution of the metropolitan water supply problem. In this instance Chicago has gone to substantial expense to obtain for itself and the suburbs an authoritative and thought provoking report prepared by a recognized firm of engineers. The metropolitan area suburbs are now duty bound, it seems to me, in their own self-interest to analyze this report and to come up either with a better solution for meeting their long range water supply needs or to accept its conclusions and aid in translating them into a workable water supply program. It strikes me that this is the way to proceed in all these technical matters. Instead of coming up with a "ready-made" solution for all our ills, which may sound good in the press, but which fails to take into account the real facts of the situation, let's get all the relevant data first, get the thinking of the people who are actually on the firing line, and then present a program tailored to realities. This puts everybody on the spot where they have to come up with a better program or go along with the proposal. When we attempt to promote panaceas which don't have a solid background of competent research, we give too much ammunition to the professional "aginners" who have looked with distrust on every innovation since women's suffrage. By all means let's move ahead but let's be sure we are really on solid ground.

Let me say too, that I am sure that Chicago does not want to annex the suburbs. As a matter of fact, the Illinois Constitution prohibits annexation of any suburb by Chicago without that suburb's prior consent, and, of course, there is an even more practical reason that militates against annexation. This reason was expressed to me by one of Chicago's sage aldermen some time ago. He said, "Annex the suburbs? Do you think we're that naive? We are looking for more Democrats not more Republicans."

The desire for local control and the responsiveness of government to the needs of the local community is indigenous to our American philospohy. Somehow, a program must be created that will assure the suburbs that they will not lose their identity and yet will allow the achievement of the kind of governmental organization necessary to provide the essential services.

Let me summarize then by restating what I regard as some of the major principles which must be recognized before we can embark on any practical program of metropolitan government:

1. We must have a revenue system and assessment program which will enable us to raise the necessary tax dollars, and will distribute the tax burden uniformly and equitably throughout the areas to be served.

2. We must eliminate or consolidate wherever posible and the antiquated and overlapping multiplicity of governmental units which are not only a drain on the taxpayer but unduly complicate the business of local government, obscure responsibility and promote inefficiency.

3. We must strive for intergovernmental coordination and cooperation at the local level, preserving the largest measure of local autonomy and responsibility consistent with the effective performance of the job to be done. We should remember too that there is no magic per se in the creation of additional super-governments to perform what are essentially local tasks and,

4. We must have all the information and all the relevant facts before we embark on any legislative program. An ill-conceived program based on theoretical surmises, prejudices or empire-building will not only fail to receive the kind of public support which is vitally necessary but will also immeasurably deter efforts to deal with the problem in the future.

Finally, let me emphasize that this problem has to be approached with good will on all sides. Chicagoans and Suburbanites, Democrats and Republicans, must understand that what is being attempted is not intended to deprive anyone of anything but rather to improve conditions for all concerned. We are dealing with non-partisan problems that affect all of us wherever we live.

It is going to be a slow process requiring the utmost patience. But it is also a fascinating problem that will challenge the combined ingenuity of the best minds in the community, and, I have no doubt that we will meet this challenge within the foreseeable future.