Should park professional run for public office?

POINT...

By Robert A. Porter

My first impulse answer is, "Who cares?" There are a few in our profession who feel this is a high ethical concern. Well, every organization needs those who worry about anything, even if it is as perfectly legal and acceptable as eating a hot dog in a ballpark.

I say any individual should seek public office if he is the best qualified, has the time and interest to serve such office, and can serve in the elected office without impairing his professional job performance. It is the constitutional right of every American citizen to seek public office.

Public perceptions

Elected office is not for everybody, let alone for park professionals. Many people have tunnel vision, viewing elected officials as evil and corrupt backroom dealers, and hard-line political animals. However, I've met a greater number of sincere, honest, caring and dedicated people who hold office. There are hundreds of public officials on library, school, township and village boards who are sincere in their efforts to improve the public services in their community.

I think we tend to underestimate our training as park professionals. We represent some of the best minds who understand governmental budgets, levies, public policy, etc. This technical knowledge is transferable to other forms of government. A skilled official can perform immediately after his election without a long orientation period.

An elected official is more attuned to public interests and needs than are appointed staff. That elected person must have public support if he hopes to be effective in reaching his objectives. This need for support (dirty word — "votes") mandates the elected official to weigh the impact of decisions and the long-term effects of policy issues.

Official accountability

One would be naive to say there is no misuse of government power, money and influence by some elected officials. It would also be ignorant to say that some appointed staff do not abuse the system by theft, patronage and improper use of power.

Some administrators of park agencies are more politically aware of the election process than their own boards. An appointed official can pretend to be innocent while being a great poker player in those "backroom deals."

Illinois Parks and Recreation 14 March/April 1988

Point

I see nothing wrong with someone seeking public office because he seeks to better the system, to enhance his community, or to improve public services. The path of the elected official is not always smooth. One must be vigilant to avoid conflicts of interest, be able to take pressure, be capable of taking public criticism, and be able to expect little thanks.

Park professionals should not seek elected office inside the park field. That process would be counter-productive to performance at the affected park agency.

Final thoughts

Being an elected official (supervisor of Lemont Township) has not impaired my performance as the director of my park district. Instead, it has expanded my skills for understanding people, for working with interest groups and for solving problems.

It has helped me understand my service population in a different focus. It has enhanced my desire to improve human services in my community. Most importantly, it has challenged me to improve my administrative skills in serving the public.

Elected office is not for just anybody. It requires a commitment of service beyond the regular work environment. I say, yes, if you are the right person for the right elected office. It is what we are all about — being an involved American.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Robert A. Porter is the director of the Lemont Township Park District, and a board member of the Illinois Park and Recreation Association.

Illinois Parks and Recreation 16 March/April 1988

Should park professional run for public office?

...COUNTERPOINT

By Richard E. Johns

No, the park and recreation practitioner should not become an official on a locally elected governmental board.

Yes, this does, in fact, mean that the practitioner loses a personal and basic civil right. It is the penalty to be paid for his position of leadership in the community.

Issues conflicts

As a staff member of a park district there is but one position to assume on local issues. That position is the one adopted by the elected park board.

It is likely and desirable for staff to have input into determining that issue position; however, once the board approves a position, it should become the staffs public position — whether or not they personally agree or disagree with it. Service on another locally elected board may very well lead to a conflict of positions, with the practitioner in the middle.

Many local issues that arise in a community may not embroil the park board and, therefore, the conflict does not exist. However, the practitioner cannot divorce himself from his publicly-perceived role as the park district spokesperson.

To the public, his voiced position on an issue becomes the park district's position. In many cases this can cause a certain segment of the population to have negative feelings about the district even though the controversy is not a park district issue.

Non-partisan support

The practitioner needs to be in as a favorable position as possible to influence various local boards. These could include the village, school, library and township boards.

In many instances, these boards will involve political parties, or at least a caucus, in electing their members. Although being part of a political party in a practitioner's personal election to a local board may help him in working with fellow party members, it will certainly work against him in dealing with boards composed of predominately the opposite party.

Not being personally involved as a local board candidate will assist in maintaining a neutral position to work with all elected officials.

Advocate role

The park/recreation practitioner has a role to play in being a non-partisan advocate of parks, recreation and open space. This advocacy position may be in opposition

Illinois Parks and Recreation 15 March/April 1988

Counterpoint

to issue positions of other local boards. For example, the practitioner may be opposed to builder developments, the sale of certain public lands, street vacations, and so forth.

The practitioner must maintain a non-partisan position so his advocacy role becomes a professional position within the community. A strong advocacy position should be officially supported by the practitioner's elected board. However, it may be in opposition to other elected boards.

Lay boards

The concept of a park/recreation practitioner serving specifically on a park board erodes the basic premise of a citizen lay board. Because of his training and experience, the practitioner is not a lay person by definition on a park board. He is a professional, and does not necessarily provide the citizen lay representation that is basic to government. It is just as inappropriate for an educator/teacher to serve on a school board.

In summary, a practitioner better serves his community and his profession by avoiding service on locally elected government boards. There are many appropriate nongovernment board positions, such as United Way, the Cancer Society and many other charitable and service organizations, that would benefit from his service.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Richard E. Johns is the general superintendent of the Glenview Park District.

Illinois Parks and Recreation 16 March/April 1988