By JAY SMITH: A former elected member of the Champaign County Board (1972-1974), he is now a field administrator for the Urban Counties Council of Illinois.
VOTERS in two Illinois counties, Winnebago and Lake, voted March 16 whether their county governments shall have home rule powers under the Illinois Constitution. If either or both of these referenda were passed, it will be a breakthrough for home rule in down- state counties (Our magazine went to press just before the election, and a complete report on the home rule referenda will be published in May.).
Cook has been the only Illinois county with home rule authority since the new Constitution was passed five years ago. The other 101 counties have the constitutional potential to achieve home rule status, but few have tried to pass the required referendum. After the new Constitution became effective, the home rule question was put on the ballot in 1972 in nine counties. All were defeated decisively. Four years have passed without any other counties voting on the question. Now, the counties of Lake and Winnebago are testing again whether voters in a down- state county will accept home rule county government.
What is county home rule?
What does it mean when a county
government gets home rule? The new
Constitution provides the basis for
home rule powers (Art. VII, Sec. 6), but
being so new in Illinois and with only
Cook County's experience to study,
there haven't been enough tests or
experience to allow an exact definition;
that is one reason voters may not want
their county to have home rule. A county
without home rule is basically a creature
of the state, operating according to
the statutes passed by the legislature.
The difference for a county which has
home rule is that it gains the power to
rule itself — but not in every area of
government. An analogy is our federal
system: all states have the power to rule
themselves except in areas where the
federal government has precedence.
Counties with home rule do not have
complete autonomy from the state
government. The new Constitution
provides some limits and the Illinois
General Assembly can and does specify
in the laws it passes whether the power
to regulate certain areas is reserved for
only the state government. When state
statutes reserve powers to the state
government, such as licensing doctors,
barbers, and other activities, they are
preempting the power of a home rule
county or municipality to pass
ordinances in that area.
Instead of being able to list, item by item, the powers that home rule would give to a county, you have to search the laws to find the powers it does not have. When an area is in doubt, the courts usually decide.
The new Constitution's only requirement for a county to get home rule is to have an elected county chief executive officer. Cook County had such an officer when the new Constitution was passed, but no other Illinois county did. A county home rule referendum is actually a referendum on the question of creating the office of an elected chief executive officer for the county.
Any Illinois county wanting home rule will have to debate the merits and limitations of establishing an elected county executive, but this debate is likely to have less bearing on home rule referendum voters' decisions than are questions of taxation. Local home rule in Illinois clearly means added local taxing authority. Another developing source of possible resistance to county home rule referenda involves municipal officials and city residents who might see home rule for their county's government as a threat to their city's home rule powers.
Automatic for cities Consequently, Article VII, Section 6 of
the 1970 Constitution imposes the
requirement of an elected chief executive as a prerequisite for county home
rule.
Home rule powers are granted automatically to Illinois municipalities of
more than 25,000 population by the
1970 Constitution. The Local Government
Committee of the Constitutional
Convention unanimously believed "that
a system of home rule is superior to the
existing system of legislative supremacy
. . . ." But, the committee was not willing
to allow a grant of home rule authority to county governments without
some restructuring of those governments. The committee stated in its
report:
Advantages, disadvantages
The advantages and disadvantages of
the county executive form of
government have been summarized in an
article, "Forms of County
Government," 1975 County Year Book,
published by the -National Association of
Counties (NAC) and the International
City Management Association (ICMA).
Among the advantages listed are that the elected executive form: (1) provides for the most visible kind of policymaking
16 / April 1976 / Illinois Issues
No downstate county has yet opted for home rule. The uncertainties of the system may explain why voters have had cold feet
leadership; (2) provides the kind of leadership needed when there is diversity and lack of consensus; (3) is more responsive to the public will; (4) generates greater visibility and prestige for the county; and (5) creates the best system of checks and balances because of the separation of powers.
Among the disadvantages mentioned are: (1) a danger of "bossism" with an over-concentration of political power; (2) excessive demands on the executive — few persons have the talents to be both a political leader and administrator; (3) potential for executive-legislative conflict (particularly where the elected executive represents a different party than that represented by the board majority); and (4) costliness because of the executive's need to hire expert assistance to conduct the day-to-day county operations.
Elected county executive
Many opponents to the passage of
county home rule referenda in 1972 in
Illinois charged that the executive might
become a "county political boss." If a
county home rule proposition is adopted
at a March primary election under
the terms of Public Act 79-396, effective
last October 1, the new chief executive is
elected at the next general election. The
nomination of candidates by the major
political parties for the office is made by
the county central committees rather
than at a special primary. But this does
not apply at subsequent elections.
Many of those directly involved in county government are basically satisfied with the system as it is. Legislative and administrative decisions are made by the board and/or board committees with each independent elected official (clerk, treasurer, sheriff, etc.) possessing full administrative authority in his own statutory bailiwick. They see no particular need for more unified executive leadership. To the extent that the advent of home rule and the election of a county executive would upset the status quo, home rule is unacceptable to many county officials.
The status quo
An alternative view is that home rule
and the election of a county executive
would not go nearly far enough in
realigning authorities of county officials
in the existing system. John Wenum, a
member of the Local Government
Committee at the Constitutional
Convention and currently a member of the
McLean County Board, is a firm
supporter of county home rule.
However, he feels that the mere selection of
an elected county chief executive does
not completely address the issue of the
fragmentation of authority in county
government because it leaves untouched
the system of electing other county
officers, i.e., the clerk, treasurer, sheriff,
etc. At a reconvening of the Local
Government Committee in 1974,
Wenum said, "You have to substantially
alter the elected officer structure of the
counties or you're just adding one more
elected official, and that would not be
rationalizing the system."
Several observers have suggested that the Constitutional Convention ignored other structural streamlining options, especially the option of an appointed county administrator, who could have served as an alternative to the elected county executive. The Local Government Committee considered but rejected an appointed administrator option. The committee thought the elected executive the best method of achieving policy leadership and that election was more consistent with democratic ideals. But, the committee stated, "It should be made clear that the requirement of an elected chief executive does not preclude the possibility, if authorized by statute, that a county manager, an administrative officer, could be appointed and delegated many of the executive official's duties."
Nationally there are 64 counties with elected chief executives, primarily in counties with populations from 100,000 to 600,000, while there are about 550 counties with appointed chief administrative officers. In states where there are elected county executives, the authorities of the executive are generally defined by local charter; only in Wisconsin, Delaware, and Illinois are the duties of the elected county executive prescribed by state statute.
Powers of county executive
The County Executive Act, passed in
1971 after the adoption of the new
Constitution, delineates the powers of
the elected chief executive (Ill. Rev.
Slat., Ch. 34, sec. 709), whose duties
include:
1. Execute orders and resolutions of the board;
2. Coordinate and direct the administrative affairs of the county, except the offices of elected county officers;
3. Prepare and submit to the board an annual county budget;
4. Appoint, with the advice and consent of the board, persons to various boards, commissions, and special districts
April 1976 / Illinois Issues / 17
'the man in the street may perceive the broadened taxing powers of a home rule unit as a threat to his pocketbook'
5. Approve or veto board ordinances, with a 3/5 board vote required to override vetoes;
6. Preside over county board meetings, with no entitlement to vote.
The members of the Local Government Committee who reconvened in 1974 seemed to feel that they should have offered, more expressly, a county administrator option as a path to home rule. Stephanie Cole, who has monitored home rule since its constitutional inception for the University of Illinois Institute of Government and Public Affairs, has suggested that "if a county is not going to attract professional management into the executive position it may make county management conditions worse than they are presently." She advises those who favor the passage of county home rule referenda to stress that a professional administrator may be appointed to assist the elected executive.
Law can be changed
Philip Elfstrom, chairman of the
Kane County Board, is a strong
proponent of the elected executive system.
When asked whether the elected
executive may not be qualified as
an administrative manager, Elfstrom declares,
"It's like electing the president or
governor — you take the same chance."
He contends that an appointed administrator, in order to be effective, must
have a strong elected official backing
him. Elfstrom believes, however, that
modifying the County Executive Act to
allow the county board to select its own
chairman to preside over board meetings, rather than having the county
executive do so, would develop a clearer
separation of powers and make home
rule with an elected executive somewhat
more palatable.
Just as the office of county elected executive is perceived by some county officers as a threat to their status, the man in the street may perceive the broadened taxing powers of a home rule unit as a threat to his pocketbook.
The Illinois Constitution places limits on local income taxes and occupations taxes and on licensing for revenue, but Cook County and various municipalities have employed their home rule authority to establish a variety of local taxes not available to non-home rule units. Cook County has used its home rule authority to implement a tax on the retail sale of new motor vehicles; a wheel tax in unincorporated areas; a liquor, beer, and wine tax; and a mobile home privilege tax. Some examples of municipal home rule taxes include a cigarette tax, an employers' expense tax, a gasoline tax, a hotel-motel tax, and parking tax. In addition, some home rule units have established property tax levies above statutory ceilings and have issued nonreferendum bonds.
New taxing powers
Supporters of county home rule do
not deny that home rule means more
expansive county taxing authority, but
they point out that existing home rule
units have been temperate in their use of
taxing powers and they stress that home
rule permits a different mix of local
taxes, more suitable for local conditions
than state statutory mandates. Home
rule proponents contend that the
counties' present revenue structure is skewed
toward a strong reliance on the property
tax, and as county expenditure demands
increase, the only added revenue source
the General Assembly and the governor
appear willing to grant counties are
permissive incremental increases in
property tax ceilings (H.B. 229, H.B.
886, and S.B. 336 are examples from the
1975 session). Home rule, its supporters
assert, would allow counties to develop
revenue sources other than the real
property tax according to local
conditions of acceptability. Proponents
further argue that any taxation
decisions would be made under closer local
voter scrutiny than are state legislative
decisions. "We're grown up now and we
want the action to take place at home
where people can watch us," says Peter
Perrecone, a Winnebago County Board
member and a home rule advocate.
The belief that "home rule will result in higher taxes" was the primary reason for the defeat of home rule referenda in nine counties in 1972, according to a survey by the Center for Governmental Studies of Northern Illinois University. Ninety per cent of the survey respondents cited it as a factor.
On the question of conflicts between a home rule county government and a home rule municipality in the same county, the constitutional framers were careful to provide: "If a home rule county ordinance conflicts with an ordinance of a municipality, the municipal ordinance shall prevail within its jurisdiction" (Art. VII, sec. 6(c)). The Local Government Committee noted in its report that one of the purposes of Article VII was to strengthen counties as an adjunct to municipalities, and in some cases as an alternative to municipalities, but the committee felt that any substantial transfers of authority among local governments should come from the General Assembly.
The effect of one significant Illinois Supreme Court decision may be to increase the skepticism with which municipal officials and municipal residents regard county home rule. In a 1972 case. City of Evanston v. County of Cook, the court upheld the home rule authority of Cook County to impose a retail sales tax on the sale of new motor vehicles within the county including inside city boundaries. One consequence of the decision was that Evanston, which had considered imposing a similar tax of its own as a home rule municipality, made a policy choice not to impose such a tax on top of the county's tax. The court did not say that Evanston was legally preempted from imposing its own like tax, but the practical effect of the decision is that for reasons of potential unpopularity with taxpayers, municipalities within counties with countywide home rule taxes are somewhat more restricted in imposing their own home rule taxes than are home rule municipalities in non-home rule counties.
Cities versus counties
Some municipalities may fear home
rule status for counties since home rule
would give a county the power to deliver
the entire range of urban services to
unincorporated areas — and this might
alter the traditional annexation growth
of municipalities in the county. On the
other hand, county home rule advocates
argue that strong county government
might lower the costs of municipal and
18 / April 1976 / Illinois Issues
special district governments, and thus lower the cumulative hill for local taxpayers. Counties could address the problems that overlap municipal boundaries, such as an pollution. transportation and water quality. For municipalities to attack these concerns would in many cases be either too expensive or ineffective because of the lack of coordination with neighboring municipalities, if special districts or appointive regional bodies were responsible for these area wide problems. electoral accountability would be sacrificed. Supporters of county home rule claim that home rule. in conjunction with intergovernmental cooperation powers, would give Illinois counties the kind of authority needed to become the "middle level" general purpose government that seems to be required to address contemporary problems like air pollution, transportation and water quality.
There are other arguments for and against county home rule. Proponents argue that: (1) county officials, rather than state officials, best know local needs; (2) the legislature often does not understand the full implications and costs of obligations it imposes on counties — home rule would give some relief; (3) county home rule would free the legislature of the burden of a large volume of bills dealing solely with county government; (4) home rule would give county governments authority they may not presently have under Illinois statutes to receive particular federal grants and thus give Illinois taxpayers a greater return of federal dollars; (5) county home rule would generate creative local initiative in problem solving; and (6) county home rule would increase citizen participation at the local level.
Critics of county home rule offer these arguments: (1) county governments serve vested and parochial interests, and home rule would merely augment the authority of those interests; (2) county home rule would conflict with the need for uniform performance levels on certain programs throughout the state; (3) there would be serious Problems in the transition of a county to home rule because of abrupt organizational changes; (4) home rule for counties simply adds to the aggregate level of governmental authority in the system; and (5) county home rule would cause excess spending. ž
19 / April 1976 / Illinois Issues