Like any organization, local government can be either high-functioning and productive or disorganized and ineffective. Diverse viewpoints, disagreement and debate are all essential elements of quality governance – when done well.
After nearly a decade as an elected official in State College, I have observed instances of well-managed conflict that led to optimal outcomes and cases where friction has led to a significant grinding of gears. That said, a healthy democratic process should embrace the exchange of varied perspectives. However, when one side’s objections rise to the level of obsession it handicaps the functioning of government, erodes trust and becomes hurtful to the community.
Often this is the result of what is termed “Outlier Syndrome” in governmental bodies. Described by Tami A. Tanoue of the Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency, “one characteristic of the Outlier cannot be denied: he or she is seldom on the prevailing side of a vote, and is often at loggerheads with the rest of the body.”
Allow me to be clear, circumstances exist where a lone dissenting voice is invaluable in identifying corruption or calling attention to a serious mismatch between the desires of the public and a governing body’s actions. Such voices function as whistleblowers or to spearhead movements that utilize the electoral process for change.
But in other scenarios the Outlier simply thrives on the attention gained by creating disruption and chaos. Tanoue states, “there is an element of the lone crusader in them,” and they “relish arguments for argument’s sake.”
I have encountered Outlier Behavior in elected officials, and what the community may not be aware of is how incredibly disruptive it is to the functioning of your local government. Government processes are clunky and slow-moving at best; Outlier Behavior adds additional work that can bring progress to a standstill. In his piece The Outlier, Kevin Duggan notes these individuals have a propensity to “attack their fellow elected officials and sometimes members of the public.” This behavior creates strife and makes the work of civil servants profoundly difficult.
Such Outlier Behavior has been increasingly evident over the last several months in our community. A handful of individuals have chosen to make accusations over “at-risk financing” – which has no meaning in the realm of government. This small group has resorted to gossiping on a friend’s radio program, and in written opinion pieces, claiming that elected officials have mismanaged taxpayer dollars. In extreme cases, they have even suggested impropriety or illegality regarding the legal fees associated with the recent multiple-municipality collaborative project referred to as the Solar Power Purchase Agreement (SPPA).
This campaign has led to unnecessary upheaval and discord on the State College Borough Council, harmed relationships between cooperating governments and unfairly maligned dedicated government employees.
Addressing the specifics of these allegations would only lend them legitimacy they do not merit, so rather I would point out that 10 governmental entities approved both the SPPA and payment of the necessary legal fees. Across the 10 participating organizations, 70 votes were cast regarding the SPPA and as best I can tabulate from the organizations’ minutes, there were only six or seven nay votes (some of which represent the same person since municipal elected officials also serve in Centre Region Council of Governments).
The participating organizations include borough and township councils and boards of supervisors, water authorities, county government and the school board on which I serve currently as president. Every one of these local governmental entities have been granted their power by the local electorate – which spans a wide political spectrum.
The SPPA was carefully prepared by professional civil servants acting at the direction of their elected bodies. Those elected officials, in turn, extensively evaluated the proposal and decided, overwhelmingly, that the purchase of renewable solar energy at a guaranteed price for a 15-year-period was a benefit to our taxpayers. The community deserves elected officials who focus on the best interests of the community and who work collaboratively to that end. In my opinion, overall, we are fortunate that is the case in the Centre Region.
Q: What’s the difference between a lone wolf and a leader?
A: When a leader turns around, there’s a group following them. When a lone wolf turns around, they’re alone.
* * *
Amy Bader has served on the State College Area School District Board of Directors since 2015. Opinions expressed are her own and do not represent policy or position of either the State College Area School District or its Board of Directors.
