That’s right, you read it here. Let’s dispense with the suspense and give you the bottom line of this posting right now; the Naperville city council has too many council members for a city of our size (eight not including the mayor). And we’ve got the numbers to support that bold statement.
But before we get into the numbers and open some eyes and hopefully some minds, let’s anticipate some misguided opposition to that statement. Some will say we need 8 city council members because we are growing in population. Well contrary to that sentiment our population has actually declined by about 2% when comparing the last two census figures. Others will say that it’s because we have 8 council members overseeing our ‘success’ that our city has been selected as the best city in the U.S. in which to live. You can lay that one to rest because in the past we were #1, but now we are now #2 within a 10 mile radius of city hall; Bolingbrook has over taken us. Others will say that we need 8 council members because “that’s the way we’ve always done it”. Now that may be the lamest excuse of all. We never had term limits and districts for our council members, however because of a few determined citizens and a massive mandate to vote for term limits and districts we now have them. So it can be done and this is the time to make it happen.
To the happiness and giddiness of city council members and local government, they have been able to delay the will of the people until the election of 2015. That’s three years after the world is scheduled to end. The last thing the city council wants to do (well almost the last thing) is to move quickly when drawing up a map for districts. As Mayor Pradel stated, “We’ve got a while to do this.” Unfortunately the legal system is allowing the Naperville City Council to procrastinate which the city council specializes in.
But listen close folks…..the city council’s propensity for delaying decisions and actions can now work in the favor of the citizens of Naperville by starting a movement to reduce the number of council members. This could be accomplished easily in time for the next election. We will have five districts and we simply need to eliminate the three at-large ‘floating’ Naperville council member positions. As I said earlier the ‘almost’ last thing the city council wants is to do is draw a map for districts and prepare for term limits. Well the ‘real’ last thing the city council wants is to be reduced in size from 8 members to 5 or 6 maximum. If you think drawing a map is difficult for them, just imagine if city council members thought they could be ‘reduced out’ of the city council.
OK let’s take a look at the numbers and specifically compare 8 cities to Naperville.
Since each of the 8 cities plus Naperville has a mayor or president of the city council we have not included that commonality into the numbers. So we are looking at the number of council members alone for each city.
First let’s compare Naperville to cities with comparable populations which include Dayton, Ohio, Hollywood, Florida, Ft. Collins, Colorado, and Pasadena, California.
|City||State||Population||# Of Council Members||Residents per Councilman|
As you can see those cities have from as few as half as many council members (4) to two-thirds as many (6), and one with one less member. The important metric to notice is the number of residents each city council member of that city represents. Each member of the Naperville city council represents 18,000 residents. Now compare that to Dayton, Ohio where each Dayton city council member represents 38,000 residents; that’s more than twice as many as Naperville. The other three cities represent from 21, 000 each in Pasadena, California to 24,000 in Hollywood, Florida. So why is it those other city councils are so much more efficient at getting the job done than Naperville is.
Now let’s compare Naperville with four other cities (Phoenix, San Diego, Detroit, and Seattle) that have a comparable number of city council members (8 or 9). Phoenix, Arizona with a population of 1,446,000 residents has 8 city council members. That equates to 181,000 residents per city council member in Phoenix; that’s ten times more residents per council member than Naperville at 18,000. Apparently the average Phoenix city council member is 10 times better at getting the job done than any of Naperville’s council members. Take a look at San Diego with 8 council members representing a population of 1,300,000 residents which equates to each San Diego council member representing 163,000 residents or 9 times more residents than Naperville’s council member represents. Detroit and Seattle have 9 council members each with populations of about 4 times as many as Naperville.
|City||State||Population||Council Members||Residents/Council Member|
|Phoenix||AZ||1,446,000||8||181,000/1 (10 times)|
|San Diego||CA||1,300,000||8||163,000/1 (9 times)|
|Detroit||MI||714,000||9||79,000/1 (4.4 times)|
|Seattle||WA||609,000||9||68,000/1 (3.8 times)|
So no matter how you look at it, Naperville has too many city council members. Are other city councils that much more efficient or competent than Naperville is? That sounds reasonable. Is Naperville that much more wasteful than those other cities. That sounds reasonable too. Or maybe Naperville is over represented; isn’t that like being over served in an establishment with a liquor license. If four or five council members can successfully do what it takes 8 to do, then we need to reduce our 8 council members to four or five. Since we are drawing up a district map with 5 districts then 5 council members sounds ideal and in line with what other successful cities are doing throughout the country.
Fewer council members mean more efficiency, shorter meetings, less expense, and the public forum can increase from three minutes for each presenter to five or six minutes.
What better way to represent citizens than to allow them more time to express their concerns. Like we said initially, the bottom line is that the Naperville city council has too many members.