Could US Local Government curb Trump’s worst excesses?

Dissent over the US president’s more extreme proposals, including mass deportation of immigrants, may come from state governments and cities.


First published in The Guardian Public Leaders 31st January 2017

What would I do if I worked in local government in the US? What do my colleagues and counterparts over there make of the situation in which they now find themselves?

In the UK, my responsibility working as an officer in local government in recent years has been to do what I could to help the councils I have worked for continue to deliver vital services in the face of overwhelming financial hardship and unrealistic expectations set by national government policy.

In a heavily centralised state like the UK, it is incredibly difficult to circumvent national policy. We have had to focus our diminishing resources on doing things differently to protect the most vulnerable people and communities.

But the US is a federal country, with a very different dynamic between national and local government. Not only do individual states have their own legislatures, but they also have the power to raise taxes. Not only does the federal government have little say over the day to day lives of US citizens, but state law also sometimes trumps (excuse the pun) federal law, if state law affords more rights to residents.

As a result, states handle the majority of issues most relevant to individuals within their jurisdiction. And although the constitution gives ultimate authority to federal laws, in practice, the federal government’s ability to enforce these kinds of laws is often limited, and it must rely heavily on local policies and law enforcement officials. Without state officials to enforce laws, federal law enforcement officials are in a difficult position.

There are about 89,000 US local government organisations with jurisdiction over the lives of US citizens. Any US president wishing to enact and implement a particular policy or enforce certain legislation requires full cooperation from some or most of them.

In 2013, for instance, the use of medicinal and recreational marijuana was legalised in Colorado and Washington. Yet the use, possession, sale, cultivation, and transportation of cannabis remains illegal under federal law.

What happens when this kind of conflict arises depends on whether the Department of Justice is up for taking on the uphill struggle of getting states to conform. In this instance, the federal government decided it was not worth the legal fight and has stepped back to see what happens in regard to marijuana laws.

There have been many other examples of this kind of clash, especially where civil rights are concerned. In early 2016, for instance, when the US justice and education departments issued new guidance giving transgender students protection under sex discrimination laws and access to facilities consistent with their gender identity, several states pushed back. The HB2 law in North Carolina prevents cities and counties in the state from passing their own anti-discrimination rules.

How might this kind of conflict affect the Trump administration? Take Trump’s campaign trail pledge to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants. This sounds completely unfeasible from an administrative point of view and Trump would also need support for his policy from municipal administrations, which would need to proactively ask immigrants for paperwork if they believe they’re undocumented. The only lever the president has to pressure cities into cooperating would be cutting off or reducing federal funding, a step that would need support from Congress.

Some of the largest and most important cities in the US have already vowed to push back on this policy, no matter what the cost might be. Los Angeles mayor Eric Garcetti has vowed to do everything he can to fight widespread deportations of illegal immigrants, and mayor Bill de Blasio of New York has pledged not to cooperate with immigration agents. Similarly, mayor Rahm Emanuel has declared that Chicago “will always be a sanctuary city”.

These “sanctuary cities” may not have the power to give people rights, but they have a lot of power of resistance, and are promising to maintain their policies of limiting local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration agents, as federal government could not compel states to carry out immigration enforcements.

Democratic cities such as Boston, Philadelphia and San Francisco, have all also confirmed that they intend to defy the administration and act as a kind of bulwark against mass deportations.

So the famous US system of checks and balances may limit some of the more extreme proposals Trump has outlined thus far.

As a UK local government worker, I for one am encouraged to see that US local government is already leading the way in ensuring the rights and freedoms of their citizens. I wish them the best of luck over the next four years.

I’m outraged at Westminster meddling in council affairs

Councils won’t put up with being told not to boycott unethical companies. It wouldn’t be the first time we have faced down preposterous diktats

First published in The Guardian Public Leaders Network 17th February 2016

Speaking as a local government officer, am I surprised that central government intends to introduce new procurement regulations to prevent councils from boycotting companies we consider to be unethical? No. Outraged, yes, but not surprised. In fact, I’m surprised we didn’t see this coming.

When it comes to localism policy and dealing with local government, Conservative governments have always displayed a kind of cognitive dissonance – constantly interfering in the way councils should or should not organise themselves. Yet they have been unwilling to formalise a written constitution or framework and even dismantled the Audit Commission in 2010, removing any standard way of benchmarking and measuring our performance on a national basis.

This, as well as the bonfire of the quangos, including the regional development agencies, and the drastic reduction in funding from central government over the past five years – all, we are told, in aid of localism and devolution. Former communities secretary Eric Pickles was always so keen to emphasise that councils were now “free” of “red tape”, and could go about their business in any way residents wanted them to. After all, decisions at a local level are taken by directly elected local councillors, who are far closer to their constituents than a minister in Whitehall, right?

Well, wrong, it seems. National politicians cannot resist interfering in local decision-making, and whatever they have given with one hand, they have taken with the other. Pickles always insisted on having his cake and eating it, and then having another one for good measure. Councils had to find millions of pounds’ worth of efficiency savings, and yet somehow he found enough money down the back of the sofa to bribe them into returning to weekly bin collections. This failed dismally, of course, because central government doesn’t quite seem to understand that its job is not to tell us what to do.

I predict that many councils will prefer to face legal challenge than toe this particular line. It wouldn’t be the first time and certainly won’t be the last that we have faced down preposterous diktats.

In any case, given that by 2020 local government will be financially self-sufficient, I don’t see how these regulations can be enforced. If local councils have a mandate – if procurement restrictions are set out in the manifesto of the party in power in any given council and it is wholly local taxpayers’ money being spent on the contracts – central government has no business intervening in those decisions.

When I was a teenager, my father told me I couldn’t spend my pocket money on kickboxing lessons. So I told him not to give me pocket money any more, went out, got a job and paid for my own kickboxing lessons. Money does not equal control, no matter what Westminster thinks.