Maricopa, Inc. – ending the status quo, political ambiguities

inmaricopa.com runs, on a regular basis, opinion pieces submitted by community members. The following article is the opinion of the author, and does not necessarily reflect the views of inmaricopa.com.

What is the value to taxpayers in clinging to a form of government that reflects neither modern technology nor modern realities? Why do we keep recycling the status quo at every election? “Status quo, you know, that is Latin for the mess we’re in.” — Ronald Reagan. Or as George Carlin put it: Status quo sucks!

Are the problems that we face with our local city, county and state government the result of a depressed macro-management culture or poor leadership? Are decisions based on philosophies and practices that reflect personal styles?

Is a city council necessary, considering that the conditions of service are mostly similar in all governments? Are decisions made with the “consumer” and the organization in mind? Visitors from the 1850s would recognize very little about their cities, but would instantly recognize the way we govern ourselves.

Why do we permit our leadership to succumb to the temptation of the quick fix and making excuses for the looming issues or the past decisions they created? Shouldn’t our elected officials be making decisions based on doing the right things for our government for the next 30, 40, and 50 years?

Why are we not streamlining committee and boards in terms of size, mandate and expertise? Are they simply not bureaucratic burdens? Can a city council or a bunch of supervisors with “non experts” manage our government effectively? Is it more efficient to run several autonomous or semi-autonomous organizations, or is it more in the interests of the consumer-citizens to combine smaller operations into a larger whole?

Why shouldn’t we expect our cities, like businesses, to function efficiently if their inhabitants are to enjoy a good quality of life? Shouldn’t we require a well-meaning leadership to be totally committed to Maricopa with undivided loyalties? Shouldn’t our population be attractive to either merchants, who desire high disposable incomes, or businesses, who desire skilled workers?

Let me modestly suggest an idea that is not new. I’m proposing a corporate buyout of Maricopa by a group of investors. However, politicians being quite adept at getting reform deferred, or even obstructed, this would be met with a vociferous clamor. Granted, there would be some issues to work out for much needed reform, especially as we have learned at the onset and during the economic crisis. So, the question is: Can we use corporate governance to better align the interest of the city’s management with that of its citizens? It can’t get much worse than it already is.

To make Maricopa, Inc. work, we would need to allow the managing corporation to do several things:

· Receive assets from the city such as roads, parks and buildings. Setting a price would be the main issue. Cities are non-profits and, therefore, are essentially worthless to an investor. Therefore the assets of the city are fundamentally worthless. And who would the proceeds of the sale go to anyway – the mayor, the county or the state? They don’t own the city. Neither do the citizens, really. But more important than the money that changes hands is the alignment of interests. Rather than force the issue of a cash transaction, the corporation would issue stock to pay for the city, and give that stock directly to landowners in the city. Ten percent of the stock would be reserved for the management team to incent them, but 90 percent goes to land owners so that if the city prospers, they do, too.

· The corporation would have the ability to levy a fee to property owners within the city limits and to create various usage fees. While certainly this would be considered by some to deliberately provide a license to steal, it’s not much different than today’s system. The big difference is that should the management team abuse their power, they can be fired. A new board of directors would be elected every year by the shareholders (as opposed to every two/four years) and that board can simply fire the management team. Furthermore, to the extent the city makes a profit from the return on its shares, those returns go to shareholders anyway, either in the form of dividends or re-investment in the city.

· The corporation must have the power to enforce laws. This is tough. However, it is not without precedent that non-governmental entities enforce laws within a jurisdiction. University campuses are good examples as are large housing developments. Neighborhood associations are often given the right to enforce standards, and Maricopa, Inc. could enforce similar rights.

A corporation would have quite a few advantages:

· Decisions would be made faster. Discretion to act within defined budget limits can be given to managers and not require approval of a city council. There would be no council. In fact, the oversight function would be vested in a board of directors that would meet quarterly and then have limited latitude to micro-manage. The board would set corporate policy, approve large deals, approve executive compensation and hire and fire the CEO. It’s hard to do business in Maricopa or with city hall today. A corporation focused on the bottom line can’t stand for that. With that in mind, ways would be found to make managers accountable for their maintenance budget performance; accountable for meeting goals; a set of performance indicators that specify what will be measured, counted, etc.; required to attend to business the first time a customer-citizen calls and not the fifth or even worse, just plain ignoring customer’s questions and concerns.

· The management team would be rewarded for success and penalized for failure. This stands in contrast to today’s system which only penalizes when things spin wildly out of control and provides no up side when things go well. An increase in economic vitality should lead to bonuses for the management team. A decline might get you fired.

· Property owners will be incented to do the right thing. You can be sure that a board of directors made up of property owners will be quick to punish those who fail to maintain or develop their property. This does not happen today. Only when Maricopa reached its best use for all its properties would shareholders start to see dividends. You’d think this would be obvious standard operating procedure under current operations, but perhaps making the linkage between investment and return would make it much clearer.

The fact is that Maricopans do/should have a large financial and quality of life interest in the management of our city. We’re not getting our tax money’s worth out of the city, county or the state for that matter and not in a long time. In my mind, we’re due for some structural change.

There are many things to work out, and several important issues to be addressed. Should renters get a vote? A corporation isn’t a democracy, which I don’t see why, but again, it’s a fair question. Would the corporation force the county and state out of town?

The concept of corporate takeover for cities is no joke; rather it should illustrate several points. Citizen interests are not aligned with those of our government leaders. This is a result of our form of government, which should be changed. And finally, we need a top to bottom overhaul of the way we think about running our city. The concept of corporate takeover for government is no joke! We can begin at the grassroots level – the city of Maricopa. I invite a citizen petition to change Maricopa’s charter to allow for a form of government more in line with a new, modern, 21st century city.

Carpe Diem Maricopa

Dr. Hull is a Sustainability System Activist and lives in Maricopa.

Submitted photo

Have an opinion you’d like to share with Maricopa? Please email it and any applicable photos to [email protected] for consideration.