71- 22,553 YERIC, Jerry Lee, 1940- COUNCILMANIC ROLES: THE CASE OF COLUMBUS, OHIO. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1971 Political Science, general University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED COUNCILMANIC ROLES: THE CASE OF COLUMBUS, OHIO DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Jerry Lee Yeric, B.A., M.A. ****** The Ohio State University 1971 Approved by ( jX \ Adviser ' ~/j Department of Political Scier>p4 PREFACE The study of Columbus* councilmanic roles would not have been possible had It not been for the confidence and cooperation given me by two distinctive groups; those who were the subject of the inquiry, and those who helped guide and direct it. Those who participated In the study by allowing me to interview them and probe areas that, in some Instances were sensitive, I owe a special thanks. Identification of these participants have deliberately been omitted, not because of a negative picture of local government, but merely as respect for their privacy. Finally I wish to thank the department of Political Science who contributed freely of their time and intellect, as well as their social support. In particular I am most grateful to my committee who bore the majority of the respon­ sibility for the study: Professor Randall Ripley whose knowledge of congressional committees provided a major re­ source and theme of the study; Professor C. Richard Hofstetter who encouraged the study of the local politics through his own interest in Columbus, and who also made available to me the use of his data for parts of the study, and finally, my deepest graditude to Professor Thomas A. Flinn who provided the initial stimulus for the study, and who made the project II a truly enjoyable one. Words are an inadequate expression of thanks for these men, for they are not only dedicated teachers and scholars, but also friends. ill VITA February 2, 19*4*0 .... B o m - Battle Creek, Michigan 1962 . .............. B.A., Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan 1962-1963.............. Teacher, Cleveland Public Schools, Cleveland, Ohio 1965 .................. M.A., The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1965-1967.............. Instructor, Department of Political Science, Indiana State University, Terre Haute, Indiana 1967-1969.............. Teaching Associate, Department of Political Science, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1969-1970.............. Research Associate, Danforth Project, Department of Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 1970 ................ Instructor, Department of Political Science, North Texas State University, Denton, Texas FIELDS OF STUDY- Major Field: American Politics Studies in Political Parties. Professor Thomas A. Fllnn Studies in Public Opinion. Professor C. Richard Hofstetter Studies in American National Government. Professor Randall B. Ripley iv TABLE OP CONTENTS Page PREFACE . .............................................. 11 VITA....................................................... lv LIST OF TABLES.............................................. vli LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS....................... ...... vi 11 Chapter I- LITERATURE AND PROCEDURE ........................ 1 Context of Study II. COLUMBUS1 EVOLUTION............................... 35 III, THE COUNCILMAN AND HIS ENVIORNMENTS.............. 58 Macro-System Micro-System IV. THE MICRO-SYSTEM'S INTERNAL ROLES. ............. 112 Purposive Roles Procedural Roles Confllctual Roles Socialization Sanctions V. THE MICRO-SYSTEM'S INTERNAL ROLES BEHAVIOR . 152 Purposive Roles Procedural Roles Confllctual Roles Conclusions VI. THE MICRO-SYSTEM'S EXTERNAL ROLES. .............. 19? Council's Administrative Roles Council's Media Roles Group Roles Partisan Roles v VII. CONCLUSIONS...................................... 224 Internal Roles External Roles Expectatlonal Model of Council Observational Model of Council BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................ 253 vl LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Region of Prior Residence......................... 38 2. Population Growth of Columbus, Ohio 1830-1969 .................................... to 3- Population Change in Ohio Cities................... **3 to Years of Residence in Columbus O h i o ............ 5 . Educational Achievement L e v e l ..................... 4-5 6. Per Cent of Columbus' Total Population Non-White...................................... 50 7. Unemployment Figures For Franklin County, State, and Nation, 1966-1969............ 52 8. Employment Distribution of the Columbus SMSA.............................................53 9. Annexations to Columbus, Ohio 1 8 3 ^ - 1 9 6 9 ...................................... 56 10. Community Conservatism Scale, Columbus, Ohio.................................. 67 11. The Distribution of Party Identification........... 67 12. Sense of Closeness Toward Governmental Levels, Columbus, Ohio.......................... 71 13. Sense of Local Government's Effectiveness, Columbus, Ohio.................................. 71 lto Affect Toward Local Politicians, Columbus, Ohio.................................. ?2 15. Classification of Legislation as It Appeared on the Agenda.............. 9^ 16. Council Assignments ............................ 100 vil LIST OP ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1. Early Ethnic Settlements .................... ^7 2. Democratic Percentage of Vote, General Elections 19^8-1968, City of Columbus............................ 69 3. Party Affiliation and Place of Residence of Councllmen by Quadrant of City, 19^8-1970 .......................... 8*f 4. Municipal Organization........................ 86 5 . Wards Losing and Gaining Registered Voters, I966-I969............................ 92 6. Internal Process Model ......................... 2^7 vlll CHAPTER I LITERATURE AND PROCEDURE Today the student of the social sciences who attempts to study local legislative behavior is faced with a subject about which few studies have been conducted. Although pro­ digious quantities of materials concerning local government have been, and are Increasingly being, produced, there remains a conspicuous lack of attention given to the local legislative body. Yet today more than any period in history the problems of local government are more visible, while at the same time the handling of those problems are under sharp criticism. Why this apparent lack of concern? First, the events that dominated this century have forced the attention of citizen and scholar alike on the national and international levels. The internationalism that accompanied the two.world wars left little time or Interest for a growing urban America. The other major event of the period was the depression which had ramifications both nationally and internationally. Quite naturally, those in the social sciences were busy re-evalu- ating the causes and studying the effects of those events upon the nation. The result was that little time, energy, or enthusiasm was allotted to state and local issues. Second, a negative attitude toward local government appears 1 to have been developed among some scholars in the process; namely, that local government was merely a mechanism by which national policies were carried out, and that the real center of government was located in Washington. Unfortunately, this attitude prevailed far longer than the programs and policies that stemmed from these events. Even today, there are those who still hold to this notion. Finally, while the population shifted from rural to urban during this century, and thus created enormous problems, research on local legislative bodies has been hampered by the failure to develop appropri­ ate research techniques and approaches that can be applied to the small legislative body."*" Because of these reasons, our knowledge concerning the local legislator, his behavior, his attitudes, his perceptions, as well as his function continue to remain largely unknown to the social scientist. However, as the awareness of local decision-makers has become more a focal point, there emerges some favorable signs for those interested in local legisla­ tive activities. Why Study City Councils? The question is still raised by some; why study coun­ cils? While there are numerous reasons, they tend to cluster around three general themes. The growing importance of local lit has only been in the past two decades that small group research has been carried out on congress. 3 government on the total life of the citizen is apparent every­ where. In sheer numbers the country has become an ’’urban'* nation with sixty-five per cent of its population today living in the metropolitan areas,2 thus bringing the citizen in daily contact with the outcome of the local legislative process. Moreover, the citizen’s demand far out exceed, those of even a few years ago. Local government is no longer a mere pro­ tector of the individual's well being, but a provider of goods and services. Demands for better recreational facil­ ities, expanded libraries, clearer air, consumer protection, and so on, are today issues brought to the local legislator. Another reason for the study of councils is the vast void of knowledge concerning local legislative behavior. Presently, our knowledge of even the most fundamental procedural infor­ mation is limited to a few accounts scattered throughout the literature. Information concerning effective and non-effec­ tive local legislative bodies is still