 |
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO | Staff | Links |
|
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO | Staff | Links |
|
"White Paper" Report to State Legislators: A Summary
by Joseph J. Bannon Background This article summarizes a legislative White Paper prepared for the Illinois Association of Park Districts, the Illinois Park and Recreation Foundation, and the Illinois Park and Recreation Association by the Department of Leisure Studies at the University of Illinois. The reason for compiling a White Paper on park districts, and collecting the extensive research data that substantiated it, was the introduction of House Bill #2336 in the 81st State General Assembly. This and related bills sought to abolish most special taxing districts in Illinois, turning their responsibilities and assets over to county or city governments. Although these bills never made it out of the Counties and Townships Committee, it was clear, especially from discussions with its initial sponsors, that comparable legislation to eliminate or consolidate special taxing districts would be forthcoming in subsequent legislative sessions throughout this decade. That is, the drive to consolidate and apparently simplify local government, while at the same time promising lower property taxes, requires the abolition of special districts. These "confuse" the taxpayer, critics say. House Bill #2336 proposed to abolish park districts, forest preserve districts, as well as repeal the River Conservancy District Act. Proponents (Representative Douglas N. Kane [D-Springfield], one of the prime sponsors) of the bill, sought to eliminate twenty-five types of special districts. The motivation for this, apart from the supposed tax savings that would ensue, was to avoid "fragmentation" of local government. The IAPD was seriously concerned about legislation similar to House Bill #2336 passing the House and Senate in later sessions, without sufficient consideration given to its implications, especially its effect on local community residents. Serious considerations of such legislation could drastically change the methods for providing park and recreation services in Illinois communities, a change that would be felt directly and foremost by local citizens and their families. Throughout the year-long dialogue on this proposed legislation, as well as the weight of expert opinion on philosophies of local government, it became clear that those persons most likely to be affected by any such legislation—the local, community recipients of park and recreation services—had not been consulted or had their voices heard. These recipients are those who support these services with their taxes. In fact, throughout the history of park districts in Illinois, the general public has rarely, if ever, been called upon to judge the efficacy of special districts for providing leisure services to local communities. To put the issue in better perspective, there are basically eight criticisms or assumptions made about the effectiveness of special districts. These criticisms have come from those in favor of the legislation, as well as from political scientists and government analysts: 1. There are too many special districts in Illinois, far more than any other state in the nation. Not only are there too many, these districts are "proliferating" and "spawning" annually. (The choice of these two words are indicative of the uneasiness that sheer numbers cause.) 2. There is little accountability of special districts to local citizens. Local residents know little or nothing about special districts, believing for the most part that city hall or county government provides these services. That is, local citizens are "confused" by park districts. Assimilation of special districts into a general-purpose government would strengthen local government and reduce this fragmentation and confusion. 3. The services presently offered by special districts could be provided more economically and efficiently through a general-purpose government. 4. There is not enough citizen involvement or participation in special districts, either in policymaking or elections. Special districts have low visibility in communities often considered "hidden" or "shadow" governments. It is concluded that if local citizens are not familiar with special districts, they cannot possibly participate intelligently in the financing, formulating, or providing of such special services. Although park district commissioners are elected in most districts, studies have shown that few voters participate in these elections. Thus, even though the commissioners are elected, the few people who do vote in these special elections cannot be considered representative of the general public. 5. There is no way to coordinate or control special districts to ensure public accountability, efficiency, or priorities. 6. There are ongoing jurisdictional disputes between special districts and general-purpose governments, e.g., disputes of police protection, eminent domain, condemnation, land acquisition, overlapping serv- Illinois Parks and Recreation 4 March/April 1981 ices, and conterminous or contiguous boundaries. 7. The original impetus or rationale for the creation of park districts (restricted municipal debt limits) has been eliminated by creation of home rule in the 1970 State Constitution. General-purpose governments can now, if they wish, levy as much taxes as they want for parks and recreational services. Furthermore, only general-purpose governments qualify for revenue-sharing funds. 8. Some park districts are so small that even if they levied 100 percent of their taxes, there would still not be enough to offer any worthwhile programs. Some park districts form simply to avoid incorporation by another park district or other governmental entity. To find out what local citizens thought about their park districts, the IAPD asked the Department of Leisure Studies to conduct several in-depth studies and public hearings throughout Illinois. Five special reports, which this article summarizes, were prepared by the Department for this purpose:
The five research studies sought facts, statistics, opinions, and arguments (for or against) these eight criticisms. In addition, the research team tried to find out what Illinois citizens knew and thought about park district services in general, and the proposed legislation in particular. Previous Research on Special Districts Prior to undertaking any new research, the Department of Leisure Studies made an in-depth search for any existing material or information that might exist on special districts or on park districts, in Illinois or elsewhere. They discovered no studies or data that included information on the attitudes or opinions of the general public toward special taxing districts, especially those providing park and recreation services. In addition, they found not one study to defend the frequently made implication that services presently provided by special park districts could be handled more economically and efficiently by a general-purpose government. Nor could they find any data to support the supposed economies that would naturally occur from consolidating special services. Finally, there were no studies on the problem currently under investigation. The problem with research in this area was its political nature—articles were written to promote a particular viewpoint. It is assumed there is no need to examine specific functions of local government to see if they can be best delivered by special districts rather than general governments. The basic assumption of these writers is that local government above all else should be efficient, and since general-purpose governments are (in their view) more efficient, they are to be preferred. Thus, with such a paucity of hard data, the need to collect fresh, objective information became more pressing. The Public Speaks The second report includes a wealth of oral and written testimony on local citizen's opinions of and experience with park districts. This report includes testimony and statements from six area meetings held from April through September, 1980, at key points in the state: Champaign, Rockford, Peoria, Elmhurst, Carbondale, and Springfield. These areas were selected to complement those of the citizen mail survey, to get as much state-wide representation as possible. A large number of citizens throughout the State of Illinois attended these six meetings, which were advertised through newspaper notices and letters from the respective park districts involved. These meetings attracted private residents, users or promoters of park district services and programs, representatives of community and civic groups, as well as park district employees, volunteers, and board members. By far, these public meetings brought forth overwhelming support for special park districts in Illinois. Based on testimony received, the majority of persons attending these meetings were unquestionably in favor of keeping special park districts in Illinois. As one speaker said, "Why fix something that isn't broken?" In general, these citizens did not feel "confused" by park districts, nor did they feel their tax statements were unclear; in fact, some were willing to pay higher taxes to ensure quality services! Nor did they consider park districts shadow or hidden governments; on the contrary, they were in frequent and satisfactory contact with park district representatives on a regular basis. If there were too many small park districts, they said, these could be considered for consolidation with a larger park district nearby. Furthermore, many testified about the necessity for not confusing the aims of special and general-purpose governments, nor to expect efficiency and cost savings merely as a result of consolidation. They felt personal contact and responsiveness between themselves and park district staff to be a real asset. By far, most participants felt recreation and park services would take a back-seat in any general-purpose government. That is, park districts were created to protect these special services, as well as to ease earlier constitutional debt Illinois Parks and Recreation 5 March/April 1981 limitations. These park districts were defended not by vested or special-interest groups, but by a local citizenry who, by far, felt the performance of park districts was praiseworthy and commendable, worthy of their support and participation. Special Report #3 also sought to determine the satisfaction of local citizens with their park districts. One of the criticisms made against those who very early opposed House Bill #2336 was that they represented persons with a direct connection or interest in the welfare of park districts; in other words, employees or board members. Therefore, this survey was designed to reach a state-wide sample of all citizens, with no particular person having a chance of being selected above any other. Of the more than 500 citizens who responded to the questionnaire, more than 90 percent were satisfied with the facilities offered by their park district. In response to criticisms that park districts do not serve the true needs of local people, the survey indicated that more than 80 percent of these citizens felt that park districts do indeed serve true community interests. Furthermore, they completely dispelled the criticism that park district employees, because of their autonomy from local government, do not perform as well as municipal employees. In fact, these respondents were far more satisfied with the performance of park district employees than that of city or county employees, and felt better informed about park district programs and services than they did about city, village, or county services. Finally, these respondents felt that park districts provide the greatest opportunity for citizen involvement, far more than city and county governments combined. More than 80 percent of them disagreed entirely with the idea of combining park and recreation services under a larger government. Park District Commissioners Survey More than 1,870 Illinois citizens serve as elected park district commissioners. Therefore, it seemed important to obtain information on their backgrounds, as one of the criticisms made is that special or vested groups dominate park district policymaking and programs. That is, park districts have been accused of being governed by softball enthusiasts, tennis buffs, or other single-minded, but dedicated persons. It has further been claimed that people residing in a district do not even know who the employees or commissioners are, making it difficult to receive satisfaction on complaints. The survey results revealed that park district boards are by far comprised of persons with the prerequisite qualifications to serve effectively as policymakers and "watch-dogs" of district operations. In addition to their service with park boards, the majority of board members are heavily involved in other community and civic activities, adding to their community visibility and availability. The survey showed that all segments of the population—senior citizens, as well as minorities and special populations—were proportionately represented by park board members. In addition, most boards actively invited the media to attend their meetings, and to publicize their programs and services. For the most part, local newspapers took full advantage of this in most park districts surveyed. Finally, most park board members felt that the highest quality of park and recreation services, at the least expense to taxpayers, could best be provided through the special district form of government. How Effective Are Park Districts? A final survey compared six Illinois park districts with six city-run park and recreation departments in states without special districts. These twelve agencies were matched, as closely as possible, for: staff, volunteer and community involvement, financial matters, and formal efforts at planning. It was found that park districts encourage far more citizen involvement through an elected, rather than appointed, partisan board. These board members are elected by local citizens and serve longer terms than do advisory board members appointed by elected officials in city-run operations. Those in favor of consolidating special districts into general-purpose governments cite cost savings from avoiding duplication of services. However, this survey indicates that both park districts and city departments were both heavily involved in inter-agency cooperation with other governments and social service agencies. That is, legislation establishing special districts in no way affects their ability to cooperate with a wide range of other governments, nor did park districts undertake less formal planning than do city-run agencies. Finally, park districts devote more personnel and money to their programs and services, underscoring the fear that many citizens have that municipal park and recreation agencies would not offer the range and quality of services that park districts do. While there is not a great difference between the money and staff devoted to park and recreation services, it is enough to indicate the value of an agency devoted solely to one service, rather than municipal governments who have to meet a wide variety of competing needs. As a result of these five studies, nearly all the criticisms made against park districts were disproved, or shown to be of no concern to local citizens. By far, all those citizens who participated in these studies indicated their strong belief that park districts should continue as they now are. There is no question in our mind that the will of the people on this issue is to not abolish park districts. We were, quite frankly, amazed at the generally flattering assessments and praise given to park districts, making one proud to be associated with the profession in Illinois. The full text of the white paper is available through the IAPD office for a nominal fee. Illinois Parks and Recreation 6 March/April 1981 |
|
|