Wausau pilot. [volume] (Wausau, Wis.) 1896-1940, 1911-11-07
w. E. CURTIS,
HENRY LEMKE,
w. H. CHELLIs,
H. H. MANSON.
HENRY J. SCHULZE.

IL. IL h1ANSONs
HENRY J. SCHULZE.
! alderman, but must be content to put
the blame on '"The Mayor and Council".
Substitutes Efficiency for Red Tape.
The Commission plan compeis the
Mayor and Commissioners to devote
their entire time to the public service
a Governmental work every day in the
yefar. Ian emergency arises it can be
met; if there is complaint on the part
of citizen anywhere it can be answe-
red and corrected THE SAME DAY;
if there is street to repair; defective
catch-basin that overfiows; a sidewalk
to mend,-a telephone call to the city
hall is all that is necessary to bring the
workmen AT ONCE to remedy the
complaint.
Under the old Ward plan, which is
our present form, the Council is required
! to meet once each month and at
NIGHT. The municipal Government
every thirty days. If citizen has a
complaint he must visit the council at
nigh; his complaint is referred to a
committee; the committee meets and
may refer the complaint to the Super
intendent of streets who usually takes
his time to investigate the trouble and
refers it back to the Council Committee,
and the Council Committee refers it
back to the council where it may go
over until the next meeting under the
head of unfinished business" No spe-
cial criticism can be offered, nor is any
intended, against individual members
of the council, they do their work as
well as possible under the present
system. It is the system that is wrong,
not the individuals.
The contrasts afforded in the fore
going provisions of the Ward represen-
tation plan and the Commission form
of Government fairly illustrate the
distinction between the Old rule and
the New, and clearly illustrate the
advantages of Commission rule over
the present system of Ward Govern
ment.
Objections Urged Against the New Rule.
The objections most seriously urged
against Commission Government are:
First that it places too much power in
the hands of a few men. Second, that
it is radical departure from the old
established prinoipale of Representative
Government. Third, that the expense
involved in paying the salaries of the
Commissioners would entail a burden
too great for the Taxpayers to bear.
Let us see if these objections will
| bear investigation.
First. The first objection arises from
a complete misunderstanding of what
commission government means and
provides. Itdoes not increase POWER
| 1T increases RESPONSIBILITY.
The commissioners are, as a matter of
fact, prevented from the exercise of
such harmful POWERS as granting
important franchises; bartering public
privileges that belong to the people, or
filling the public service with political
friends to pay political debts at public
expe lse, by ample safeguards of the
REF FERENDUM and the civil service.
The POWER of dishonest official
to remain in office or one who uses his
position in any way to oppose the best
interests of the city is also taken away
by the wise provision of RECALL.
The POWER of the commissioners to
defy public sentiment by refusing to
enact ordinances such as people de
mand, is entirely eliminated by the
initiative.
Yet the legal power and authority to
do all these things are not only
VESTED in the mayor and council
under the old ward plan, but they are
often EXERCISED to the detriment
of good government and at taxpayers
cost.
Commission government restores to
the people the right to vote upon all
public grants; to recall incompetent or
dishonest officials and to pass, by pop-
ular vote, any ordinance desired by the
public, and while it gives this addi-
tional power, IT DOES NOT TAKE
FROM THE PEOPLE A SINGLE
| PRIVILEGE WHICH THEY HAVE
UNDER THE OLD WARD PLAN.
| The concentration of responsibility
should not be confused as meaning in
crease of power. Commission govern
ment simply re-enacts the old statutes
governing cities and designates the in
u Ll.n.- l..-, 1t \