Is Another Level of Oversight Needed?

Wednesday, 12/27/06
By TOMMY BRAGG
President, Tennessee Municipal League
Mayor, City of Murfreesboro
 

Other Views

Oversight and regulation have been the way of the world for many years. In my experience as a printer, weekly newspaper owner, National Guardsman, mayor, father and husband, the real pursuit of equity relies more on who exercises discipline, not oversight.

My grandfather and father were both Tennessee Press Association presidents. In the General Assembly, my dad labored long to have Tennessee adopt one of the strongest open meetings laws in our nation. Possibly in their minds was the simple question, "Who guards, who rules, or who decides?" Our state and local governments have worked together under the current law and, personally, I believe it has been beneficial and continues to work for all Tennesseans. Our government should be open and transparent.

Our democracy, far from perfect, has included safeguards from its formation. And these safeguards have not been limited, but have grown exponentially, in my opinion, through the years, as each generation has bumped, stumbled or tripped over the triplets "graft, greed and corruption."

Consider the current level of oversight for elections and campaigns, crime and punishment, affirmative action, health and human services, judicial impropriety, market manipulation, emergency management, education and job training, mental health, pharmaceuticals, environment and conservation, and any other activity known in America. Can there be more beneficial interruption to normal process?

Noah would have been frustrated

Readers may have seen a funny Internet story detailing Noah building an ark in today's regulatory environment. Answering for his failure to produce before the flood, Noah confesses, frustrated and humiliated, he has encountered so many rules, regulations, statutes, ordinances and "red tape," he has failed. Is our oversight today too much or inappropriate?

The common argument to limit regulation is cost. Taxpayers pay for public hearings, regulation and process to reach agreement. They not only pay in dollars, but in time, a most valuable commodity. Perhaps, better decisions are made, benefiting more citizens. But where is enough, enough? Attorney Robert B. Charles proposes "From Democracy to Regulocracy" in World and I(July 1994.) I tend to agree. As an institution, government may well be headed for problem-solving gridlock.

In just our city of Murfreesboro, there are perhaps 250 members of the boards and commissions appointed for action and reaction. They are the public's eyes and ears. They are residents and taxpayers.

When councils were originally chartered, they were a reflection of sound government for residents. I suggest that today's board and commission members, whether state or local, serve just as much as a sounding board for today's residents, an additional level of review for reasonable, prudent decision-making. Is still another level needed?

The debate will continue, but I, for one, believe our current checks and balances, cumbersome and suspect at times though they may be, are working well today. In this instance, I do not believe more is better.