CAPE GIRARDEAU OPERATES UNDER SEVERAL FORMS OF GOVERNMENTS

As the former editor of the Southeast Missourian and someone who for 40 years kept close tabs on Cape Girardeau municipal government, John Blue has seen the gamut of city administration.

Just last year, voters made the most recent change by approving a measure to switch from at-large city council elections to ward representation.

City officials and a citizen committee now are ironing out details of the zone election process that will bring city governance full circle from the time Cape Girardeau was incorporated in 1808.

Blue explained that the first system of government was the aldermanic form, complete with council representation from the city's then four wards.

The retired newspaper editor has strong views on which form of government is best suited for the city.

"There's no question that the council-manager form of government with the city charter system is the best we've had, recognizing there's no perfect system of government," Blue said.

From its maiden years, Cape Girardeau operated under an aldermanic form of government with council members elected from wards. Today's 16 voting wards are scions of that inception.

Today, though, the ward boundaries are drawn only with voting convenience in mind and aren't represented by the at-large council. New ward boundaries, which will total six, will divide the city evenly by population.

How Cape Girardeau evolved from the initial four-ward aldermanic form of government to an at-large, city manager/council form, and back again essentially is a case of "trial and error," Blue said.

He said the original aldermanic system fostered bitter battles and ward disputes over the years, and in 1918, citizens voted to change their form of government and elected a city commission.

"A lot of cities across the country had decided that a commission form of government was the way to go, and it was something that was the rage at the time," Blue said. "People believed it was a much more efficient system than the ward system."

Under the commission form of government, responsibility for municipal operations was divided between commissioners.

"The commissioner in charge of police would fight with the one over the fire department, and he would bicker with the commissioner over public works, as they each tried to get a bigger share of the city budget," Blue said. "The people finally got sick of it."

After at least three recall elections prompted by the voters' disgust with the system's inefficiencies, citizens voted out the system in 1965 in favor of a council-city manager form of government.

Council members were elected at large, but unlike with the commission form of government, the mayor was appointed by the council from among its members.

Blue said the new form of administration was a vast improvement over previous efforts. He said the city ran more efficiently, city finances stabilized, and order replaced chaos as a trained professional manager worked with the elected council.

In 1981, voters changed their government again. They adopted a Home Rule Charter, which incorporated the council-manager form of government and at-large elections as its foundation.

The Home Rule Charter enabled the city to write its own laws and regulations, and no longer be bound by state statutes regarding cities of its class.

Blue said the charter form of government only improved those positive attributes of the council-manager administration. "It was a good system that has worked well," he said.

City government has not changed since 1981, but in the past few years, more and more opponents of at-large council representation began to emerge in the community.

The issue of ward representation was a prominent one in the 1990 council election, as several candidates said they favored a switch.

Last year, a group of citizens secured sufficient signatures from city voters to place a ward-election measure on the November 3 ballot. The change was approved by a two-to-one margin, much to Blue's chagrin.

"I think it's a step backward and a huge mistake," he said. "The public expects too much; they want it to be perfect.

"But we've been served far better by the council-manager form of government under the charter system than by any other system."

Proponents of the ward election measure have said that sections of town namely the south and east sides aren't adequately represented by the current council members, who mostly live in northern sections of the city.

They claim zone representation will ensure that at least some of the council members represent the interests of those particular areas of the city.

But Blue said the ward system of government has been discredited throughout the United States. He said the system encourages infighting among council members as they fight for the interests of their ward constituents and not the city's at large.

"I think we're in for a period of real trouble in the years ahead," Blue added. "There's going to be squabbling among themselves over the spoils of city government.

"It will be a miracle to me if the city has good government over a period of time."

The new measure calls for councilmen to be elected from six wards, with the mayor continuing to be elected at large.

The only question that remains is how the city will be divided. The wards approved last November by voters were comprised of combined voting wards.

But those boundaries weren't drawn according to population and now must be changed.

City Attorney Warren Wells has said the zones violate the U.S. Supreme Court's "one-man, one-vote" rule, which says the wards must have nearly the same number of people of voting age to assure equal representation on the council.

The committee working on the boundaries is expected to draft a new ward election measure to be resubmitted to the voters some time this year to enable implementation of the new system in 1994.