The Roundup published an opinion by Council Member Nossek that took exception to voters’ rights. Mr. Nossek targeted his address at me. The Nossek opinion was removed from publication. The opinion was on the heels of an article by Mr. Aleshire that attempts to lay the dysfunction of Payson politics at my feet. While flattering, both are incorrect. Since 2017, I have had the privilege of being the Chair/Spokesperson for Transparent Payson. They are not addressing me; they are addressing the resolute volunteers, the patrons, and, ultimately, the sixty percent of the electorate who voted to pass Propositions 401 and 402.
The basic argument presented is one of representative democracy and that Transparent Payson advocates for a complete direct democracy. That is incorrect. Day to day operation of government must occur from representative democracy. The government is too complex to attempt any other method.
“Representative” does not mean carte blanche, nor does it give unlimited authority. When politicians state that representative democracy is superior, they state that voters are flawed. That statement does not support the tyranny of the majority, which both the State and Federal Constitution limit. Winning an election conveys no special knowledge. Representative democracy does not remove the voter or taxpayer from the local equation. Stating that elected representatives have a greater knowledge or comprehension is condescending to every citizen. Citizens can decide on complex issues.
The Town of Payson has no issue with direct democracy when it works in their favor. An example is the Green Valley Park general obligation bond. As a reminder, the Town had a plan for an off-year general obligation bond in 2025 for additional funding. The Town had the approval of the General Plan on the last ballot. The recent school bond override? While not a Town matter, nobody had an issue with direct democracy when it worked in their favor. Politicians fear direct democracy when the outcome may not reconcile with their desires. Simply glossing over by saying “elected representative” or “representative democracy” is a disservice to history and the importance of the individual voter.
Representatives are only as good as the information they receive. Locally, that information comes from Town Staff, currently funneled exclusively through the Town Manager position as reflected on the organizational flow chart. The biggest problem with a representative democracy? Look at the corruption and bloat in Washington. Need I say more?
To support criticism of limited direct democracy, Mr. Nossek and others discuss the country’s founding. Discussing the Federal Government system with only representative democracy versus a local government that allows for direct democracy is like comparing a Chevrolet to a Ford. Both have similar components, but they are different vehicles. If you are attempting to repair a Chevrolet, you do not head to the Ford parts counter. It would be helpful if Mr. Nossek understood the role of direct democracy at the local level and refrained from comparing it to a dissimilar vehicle. Doing so requires an understanding of history.
Arizona’s original proposed Constitution was written in 1910. When Arizona came into statehood, it was during a “progressive period.” Initiatives, referendums, and recalls came about to fight undue influence from corporations such as railroads and others. Twenty-six states have a form of direct democracy. There are unique elements of the Arizona Constitution and the constitutions of western states in general.
Examples of the changes from early state constitutions, such as Maryland’s and others, to Arizona’s, are a strong emphasis on individual rights brought about by the Civil War. Statehood required revisions to the 1910 proposal as it was “too progressive.” Arizona’s Constitution allows for direct democracy by initiative, referendum, and recall. After statehood in 1912, one of Arizona’s first orders of business was women’s suffrage, passed and adopted into the Arizona Constitution the same year Arizona became admitted to the Union. Arizona granted suffrage eight years before enacted at the Federal level in 1920. That suffrage effort was a result of direct democracy.
Transparent Payson has never been against a community/aquatic center or any other project. Here is the caveat. Put the horse before the cart. That is, ask the citizens for the funding FIRST. Put it to a vote. If fifty percent plus one vote says additional taxes for any significant improvement are a promising idea, build it. Rules in a democracy dictate that Representatives do not forget or forgo the role of the governed and the taxed. If funding or taxing requires an emergency ordinance to preclude citizens from exercising their rights, it may not be in the citizens’ best interest. Payson’s tax rate and debt should be placed before the electorate. That is not a radical idea.
Transparent Payson is not now, nor will it ever be, willing to silence voters’ voices with cries of “representative democracy” when representatives fail to represent the governed.
It remains our MONEY, our LAND, and our VOTE.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey S. Aal
Chairperson, Transparent Payson