All politics is local.
This saying has been around for many years but is most associated with and attributed to legendary Speaker of the House Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill, Jr. So much so that he used it as the title for a book he co-wrote back in the 1990s, “All Politics Is Local: And Other Rules of the Game.” O’Neill described the concept this way: “For me, politics always was about values combined with instincts. Put those together and you get a rule.” And his most important rule was: all politics is local.
The phrase is so well known that the American Bar Association and the National Association of Bar Executives used it as the title of their 2016 “Practical Guide to Effective Advocacy for State and Local Bars.” They described the meaning of the phrase thusly: “As mysterious as the political process may appear, or as complex the legislative process actually is, successful participation usually boils down to knowledge and common sense that the advocates already have, skills they already utilize, people they already know, and the ability to frame and advocate the issue as one important to the legislator’s district, state, and constituents.” In short: all politics is local.
And one of the most important issues of local politics here in Happy Valley – and just about everywhere – is who gets our hard-earned money that we turn over to these successful participants in the political process? In the State College area, below are the 2023 expense budgets for each of the Centre Region municipal governments:
- Borough of State College – $80,570,898
- Ferguson Township – $27,970,729
- College Township – $11,452,147
- Harris Township – $4,250,947
- Patton Township – $16,374,774
- Halfmoon Township – $1,233,967
That equals a grand total of $141,853,462 that these six local governmental entities expect to spend this year. Interestingly, this is almost $40 million less than the $180,273,275 expense budget for the State College Area School District in 2022-23. The school district is comprised of the aforementioned borough and the townships. (Note: Benner Independent’s numbers are not included as they are difficult to separate, but do not alter the total by much).
Meaning the nine members of the State College Area School District Board of Directors control more money than all of the local governments whose residents they serve combined. As an aside, the school board also controls more money than the entire Centre County government, which has an expense budget for 2023 of only $106,726,725.
Which is why, as far as local politics is concerned, the State College Area School District is of great importance to all the residents under its control. But do the residents really have a fair choice in who they elect to the school district — the most financially impactful local governmental body they deal with?
Almost three months ago I wrote a column on these pages proposing that the State College Area School District had a great opportunity to be an inclusive organization and manifest diversity on the board through their appointment of a board member. I also made a suggestion that would allow a greater possibility for diversity through the normal election process by changing the election of the nine school board members from an at-large election to a region or “ward” election.
Although it’s unlikely the current board will allow future elections to be conducted in that manner, in a little over a month another comment I made in that column will come to the fore during the municipal primary election on May 16, 2023. There are five State College Area School Board of Directors positions up for election this year, and there are 11 candidates who will be on the ballot for the primary election. And all 11 of them will be listed on both the Democratic and Republican ballots.
How is that possible you might ask? Normally when you vote in a primary election you are only voting for people who are members of and want to represent your party. You go to your polling location and they give you either a Republican or a Democratic ballot. When you vote in a primary for council members, representatives, mayors, senators, etc., the candidates are only listed on one party ballot. Isn’t that the purpose of a primary election – to choose your party’s candidates who will run in the general election? More importantly, how will I know which of these candidates most closely aligns with my values, beliefs and wants for our education system if I don’t know which are Democrats and which are Republicans?
The reason is that in July 1972 the state legislature passed Act 171 that allowed school board candidates to cross-file nomination petitions for multiple political parties. The May 1973 primaries – exactly 50 years ago from this upcoming primary – were the first time in Pennsylvania that school board candidates showed up on both Republican and Democratic ballots. And a half-century of political confusion at the local level has ensued.
The reform argument at the time was that cross-filing served as a mid-point between purely partisan elections and completely nonpartisan elections. That political parties should somehow be eliminated from local elections and cross-filing of school board candidates was a stepping-stone in that direction.
In addition, academics maintained that politics and education were separate entities. Educators would assiduously avoid being labeled with the word politician due to the negative connotation it carried. The desire was to preserve the image of public schools as a unique nonpolitical function of government.
Except, as noted above, in Happy Valley this particular function of government controls more money than every other local form of government combined. It sets property tax rates. It takes .95% of every dollar we earn. How is that not political or partisan?
Plus, as I mentioned in my previous column, allowing candidates to cross-file could be the beginning of a slippery slope of misinformation. Once a school board member runs under both political parties, even though they are clearly registered and affiliated with one political party, they’ve now convinced themselves that the truth is fungible and the end justifies the means. They are now compromised and there’s no going back. Which is extremely difficult to avoid because it’s almost unheard of for a non-cross-filed candidate to win election to the State College Area School Board. Or any school board in Pennsylvania for that matter.
All of which may be why, at different times over the past decade, proposals have been put forward in the PA legislature to eliminate cross-filing for school board elections. But there are those who still agree with cross-filing and suggest that education is somehow not political. As local state Rep. Scott Conklin, D-Rush Township, has said about plans to get rid of cross-filing, “They’re making even the education of our children partisan.”
But isn’t it? And more to the point, shouldn’t education be partisan? Shouldn’t the process that helps us choose virtually every other government official – local, state and national – be the same process that allows us to determine who educate our children and spend these enormous sums of local money on our behalf? If it works for every other office, why not for school board?
And in a bit of academic support for eliminating this confusing election practice, Professor J. Wesley Leckrone of Widener University has studied cross-filing and said he doesn’t see how eliminating cross-filing would benefit either Republicans or Democrats. In addition, he also said it doesn’t make much sense to limit cross-filing to specific offices. In other words, allow cross-filing for all offices or eliminate it altogether. The more likely option being to eliminate it altogether so that voters are more informed about their choices. Perhaps it’s time for Pennsylvania to look back at a half-century of confusing voters and let the local political process work.
Because as Tip O’Neill, the American Bar Association, and many others have pointed out throughout history, all politics is local.
