Political Observation - Case Study Example

Political observation The Council last Tuesday discussed, among other items, two separate issues that concerned poor citizens of the city. The first involved the funding of sports lessons in the community centers, the other concerned uninsured vehicles. Though these issues are entirely unrelated, they both have an affect on the poor. Interestingly, the city council seemed very concerned about the plight of the underprivileged on one issue yet completely unconcerned with regards to the other. Following about 30 minutes of purely procedural duties which no one but the council members knew of or cared much about, the question of continuing the financial endowment to area community centers was brought before the council. The money had been allocated for the past eight years and is targeted to pay for athletic classes for those kids that cannot afford the modest fee. The matter seemed like the type that would gain quick approval and that this proposal was little more than ‘procedural’ but this was hardly the case. A councilmember actually doubted that any parent was so ‘economically disadvantaged’ that they couldn’t afford the $35 fee. Of course, as if on cue, another councilmember asked what world they were living in. This was obviously the same question being silently asked by those in the gallery. Had this councilmember not driven through some of the neighborhoods in their own district? How could this person possibly believe that all citizens could readily dish out $35 every time any one of their children wanted to participate in an extra curricular activity? After the councilmember learned from most all his colleagues that yes, there are some folks that really are broke most of the time, the issue seemed cleared for passage. This is when the meeting became somewhat interesting for the first time that evening but not the last time. Business owners in the community lined up at the podium to voice their opinion, all were opposed to the funding. It wasn’t because of the cost to taxpayers which had been estimated at about 25 cents per person per year. The council was not proposing to raise taxes or increase present funding, just to continue it. The business owners all operated sports related activities for kids. Combined, they offered a range of classes which included gymnastic, karate, soccer and cheerleading instruction among others. The common complaint was that their businesses suffered because kids could receive comparable classes free courtesy of the city. They brought charts showing recent declines in their profits and claimed they would soon be out of business as a result of the city’s actions. Following the parade of emotional testimony given by business owners claiming financial ruin due to a handful of impoverished children learning how to tumble for free, a councilmember asked them a couple of revealing question. First, he asked how much they typically charged for one child taking six weeks worth of classes, the duration of community classes. The answers varied but none offered classes for less than $55 and one was $125. Second, he asked if this included uniforms. All answered no. He surmised that it would cost at least $100 for a child to attend any one of these classes then asked if they thought that those parents who couldn’t find $35 could afford $100 for essentially the same activity. The point was that the community centers are not taking any business away from the private classes because the kids of poor parents are either taking classes funded by the city or not at all. The business owners began talking among themselves in an attempt to find other arguments as their main points had been successfully dismissed. Another councilmember in effect closed the matter after his candid comments. He looked coldly into the pack of business owners and told them that if they cannot offer a better quality class that what is offered by the city which generally uses volunteer instructors, they are either charging too much and should become more competitive or raise their level of instruction to justify the price they charge. Either way, he essentially dismissed their complaints as frivolous and a waste of the council’s time, not to mention insensitive to the plight of the poor. On that note, the council, not wanting to seem insensitive themselves, voted unanimously to continue the funding. Next on the agenda, these compassionate members of the city council discussed the issue of enforcing the mandatory car insurance law. Though it is a state law, the council felt compelled to take action on the matter. The recommendation centered upon towing the vehicles of those drivers who could not prove financial responsibility to the city impound yard and holding it there until such time proof could be presented. This raised several concerns among a couple of council members. What if the driver misplaced the insurance card but the vehicle is indeed covered? What to do with a family whose car had been towed, leave them on the street? How about those that are from out of town? It seemed to some that the punishment did not fit the crime in these circumstances. The police chief was asked for his opinion. He said that this action would cause more problems than it cured. It would require the use of more police man-hours to arrange accommodations for people who could not be simply left on the street. The city would ultimately be less safe as his budget did not allow for more officers to compensate for the lost time. Instead of patrolling the streets, they would be glorified taxi drivers much of the time. He quoted a statistic concerning uninsured motorists that illustrated his point. Of the vehicles stopped for violations in the city the previous year, 20 percent did not have proof of insurance. Beyond his department’s lack of resources to handle this amount of added work, he said the city impound yard would have to expand tenfold. The police chief touched on the human factor of this proposal, an aspect which the council members had not. However, no one questioned the negative impact on the poor community as a whole. It is that group alone that would be punished by this proposal. Consider, for example, a single mother of three kids who is barely able to pay the monthly bills, feed and keeps clothes on her kids. She falls behind on her car insurance payment temporarily and is stopped by a patrol officer because her tail-light went out. Until she pays the hefty ticket fine, towing and storing charges in addition to the insurance premium, she is without transportation. How can she get the kids to school, go to the grocery store or to work? If she can’t go to work, she certainly cannot pay the ever-increasing fines not to mention put food on the table or pay the light bill. The proposal passed by an 8-1 vote. The one dissenter said that he did not vote for the measure because of the police department’s concerns. It seemed that this aspect alone would kill the proposal because it would further reduce police manpower thus compromising public safety. It was more than curious that this same body just 15 minutes earlier was believably concerned for the poor citizens of the city yet did not invoke this concern during the uninsured motorist discussion. Impounding a car is much more hurtful to a family than not subsidizing their child’s karate class yet the concern for the poor was strong regarding the community classes issue but practically non-existent during the towing discussion. What the real motivation behind these decisions was remains unclear. Surely there were underlying factors not mentioned during the city council meeting that affected their decisions regarding these two dissimilar yet closely connected issues. If not, the council’s concern for the poor was disingenuous or they cannot assimilate information well enough for them to be trusted with the city’s business. Read More