Council Sharply Divided on Election Date Change
By GEORGE BROMLEY
Falls Church Times Staff
Opinion was sharply divided last night as the Falls Church City Council engaged in its second debate on changing the date of municipal elections.
A draft ordinance, scheduled for first reading on November 23, proposes moving next May’s election to November 2010. If approved by four or more Council members, a second reading would be held on December 14. Approval of the second reading would make the proposal law.
Proponents repeatedly stressed that their intent is to increase the turnout in City elections, which has dropped about 40% since 1990.
Councilman Lawrence Webb, who first offered the proposal last month along with Councilman Dan Sze, expressed surprise at the resulting controversy.
“I had no idea of what a firestorm this would bring. I don’t know what the fear is about having the conversation.” Mr. Webb stated that he had contacted several other localities that had made the switch to November and that none had encountered any problems.
Vice Mayor Hal Lippman continued to favor the move. “Is something broke that needs to be fixed? I think so.” He stated that the May vote “empowers a vociferous minority to assert much more influence over our elections.”
Several members hinted that they might consider delaying a change until 2012, but no one formally proposed revising the ordinance to reflect that date.
Some of the sharpest comments concerned the speed at which the measure is moving and that it effectively bypasses the City’s Charter, which states changes will be made by resolution or referendum, rather than by ordinance (Section 4.17).
The Charter, which is granted by the General Assembly, specifies dates of elections and terms of office in Chapter Three. However, City Attorney John Foster advised the Council that a date change via ordinance is permissible under Virginia code.
Councilman Dave Snyder, who referred to the City’s Charter as “its Constitution”, clearly was not impressed. ”I don’t negotiate with a gun to my head.” he fumed. “I’m not supporting even the possibility of changing the Charter through ordinance.”
Councilman Nader Baroukh concurred. “We have had the authority to do this for about nine years, so I’m not sure why there’s now a rush to do it this year. This isn’t something that we can jump into without fully looking at it. I adamantly oppose making a change in the next six weeks.”
Both councilmen emphasized that the Council’s energy should be focused on the City’s ongoing financial crisis, rather than on a potentially divisive issue. Falls Church currently faces a $6.5 million deficit and an even greater one next year.
Councilman Dan Maller was cautious. “I want to consider the structure of our government much more broadly. There are matters more important than when elections will be held, such as making the Chief Financial Officer directly accountable to the Council.”
Mr. Maller also observed that although there is a huge value in increased voter participation, that gain had to be balanced against the risk of partisanship.
Mayor Robin Gardner, noting that the “old guard” had spoken out on the issue, spoke on behalf of those she termed ”the young guard.”
“Every five years we have a 50% turnover in the City. People don’t know that May is a voting month. I find offensive the view that only the people who vote in May are concerned. I want to make voting the easiest thing to do for all our citizens. The real issue is how do we get more people to the polls.”
___________________________________
Click to view the video on the City’s website
.
The debate did not end placidly. Mayor Gardner quickly took offense when Mr. Baroukh sought to respond to her concluding remarks. ”You always come back at me, Nader, it happens all the time.” she complained.
When Mr. Snyder defended his colleague, arguing that the Mayor had no specific right to the final word, Ms. Gardner responded resentfully “There is so little respect I receive from both of you.”
The draft ordinance begins “The Council is requested to approve . . .”, but does not specify which member or City staffer proposed the measure. The document lists the City Attorney as originator, but notes he has made no recommendation, only that the decision is within the authority and discretion of the Council.
Mr. Foster stated last night that the ordinance was prepared at the request of two members whom he did not identify, presumably Mr. Webb and Mr. Sze. He reiterated that he had no position on the matter, which he referred to as “a purely policy issue.”
When asked why the ordinance did not reference School Board elections, which also are held in May, Mr. Foster advised that Virginia code mandates that Board members will be elected at the same time as Council officials, so no specific reference was required.
Mr. Foster also stated that if the election date is changed to November there is no provision that would enable the City to move it back to May.
The draft ordinance incorrectly states that the move would result in annual savings of $18,000. As municipal elections are held every other year, the annual savings would be $9,000.
The document was available yesterday at the City’s website but has since been removed. [Correction: The document was not removed, but rather moved to a different location on the City website after last night's City Council meeting. It can be viewed here. At the time of this correction at 11pm Tuesday Nov. 17, the posted document remains the version which incorrectly states the annual savings of moving the election.]
A link to a January 2001 League of Women Voters study on the May-November issue is available here.
By George Bromley
November 17, 2009
So we now see the true cost savings. $9,000 vs. the $60,000 savings that Council Member Dan Sze mentioned. Over a 666% exageration of facts. I would like to save the $9,000 of needless spending, myself, effective 2012 elections.
It seems like the main reason people want to move the elections to November is to increase voter turn out. This makes me wonder – why don’t more people vote in May? Getting to the bottom of that question is important.
The Mayor suggests that high turnover of City residents could be to blame – people just don’t realize there is an election in May. I moved into the City after the 2008 election so I’m not exactly sure what is done to let people know there’s an election – but it seems far fetched to me that a large part of the population doesn’t know about it. Instead of moving the election to November why not do more to let people know there is a May election?
Also, hasn’t the City always seen high turnover? Why are the May turnout numbers going down now?
And if they don’t know about the May election it seems likely that they would go into a November election not knowing that there’s a local component to it. That would put them in the voting booth with no information about the candidates. Do we really want a lot of votes from people who don’t know the candidates or the issues? Would that make the election better?
I don’t want to offend the Mayor by suggesting that the people who don’t vote in May don’t care – but I’m trying to figure out what the other reasons could be. Maybe they don’t know – can we do a survey of the residents to find out if that’s true? I’d hate to think that people don’t vote in May because they’re not willing to take the time to head out to the polls.
That leads me to believe that we don’t have a big turnout in May because many people don’t care a lot (they care some, but not enough to dig into the candidates and issues and head out to vote). I’m not suggesting that’s a bad thing – a lot of people are focused on state and national issues. Before I moved into the City I didn’t pay much attention to local politics.
And whether or not the non-May voters care, I think it’s safe to say that most of the people who do vote in May do care (and know something about the candidates and the issues).
Making this change is a big deal and I think the only way to do it is let the citizens vote on it. The City Council should not make this change directly.
If Mr. Webb just wanted to start a conversation, then this is not the way it should have turned out, with a proposed ordinance, rushed through. He supposedly started the conversation last spring, but none of his colleagues thought it important enough to discuss until a few weeks ago.
I think Mr. Webb’s message has been hijacked by the Mayor, purportedly speaking for the “new guard” whoever they are. This whole discussion is plain insulting, with Mr. Sze saying he wants to extend the date because he doesn’t have time to campaign, Mr. Lippman calling those against it names, and now the Mayor defining supporters and detractors as “new” and “old” and demanding respect from anyone who differs from her opinion. This is no discussion.
So the question I have for all of the council persons in favor of this is why the rush? Why not lead a group of like-minded citizens in getting a referendum on the ballot in November? Is this what Mr. Webb wanted to see?
I can not say how Mr. Maller would vote because I am not him, but I would be shocked if he opposed the Mayor’s vote. I think I heard through the grapevine that he is “new guard”.
What is the specific Virginia Code provision that the City Attorney is claiming allows the Council to circumvent the Charter on the dates for the election?
Virginia Code Sect.
§ 24.2-222.1. Alternative election of mayor and council at November general election in cities and towns.
A. Notwithstanding the provisions of § 24.2-222, the council of a city or town may provide by ordinance that the mayor, if an elected mayor is provided for by charter, and council shall be elected at the November general election date of any cycle as designated in the ordinance, for terms to commence January 1. No such ordinance shall be adopted between January 1 and the May general election date of the year in which city or town elections regularly are scheduled to be held therein.
B. Alternatively, the registered voters of a city or town may file a petition with the circuit court of the city or of the county within which the town is located asking that a referendum be held on the question of whether the city or town should elect the mayor, if an elected mayor is provided for by charter, and council members at the November general election date of any cycle as designated in the petition. The petition shall be signed by registered voters equal in number to at least ten percent of the number registered in the city or town on the January 1 preceding the filing.
The court, pursuant to § 24.2-684, shall order the election officials on a day fixed in the order to conduct a referendum on the question, provided that no such referendum shall be scheduled between January 1 and the May general election date of the year in which city or town elections regularly are scheduled to be held therein. The clerk of the court shall publish notice of the referendum once a week for the three consecutive weeks prior to the referendum in a newspaper having general circulation in the city or town, and shall post a copy of the notice at the door of the courthouse of the city or county within which the town is located. The question on the ballot shall be:
“Shall the (city or town) change the election date of the mayor (if so provided by charter) and members of council from the May general election to the November general election (in even-numbered or odd-numbered years or as otherwise designated in the petition)?”
If members of the school board in the city or town are elected by the voters, the ballot question also shall state that the change in election date applies to the election of school board members.
The referendum shall be held and the results certified as provided in § 24.2-684. If a majority of the voters voting in the referendum vote in favor of the change, the mayor and council thereafter shall be elected at the November general election date for terms to commence January 1.
C. Except as provided in subsection D, no term of a mayor or member of council shall be shortened in implementing the change to the November election date. Mayors and members of council who were elected at a May general election and whose terms are to expire as of June 30 shall continue in office until their successors have been elected at the November general election and have been qualified to serve.
D. In any city or town that elects its council biennially or quadrennially and that changes to the November general election date in odd-numbered years from the May general election date in even-numbered years, mayors and members of council who were elected at a May general election shall have their term of office shortened by six months but shall continue in office until their successors have been elected at the November general election and have been qualified to serve.
(2000, c. 1045; 2002, c. 30.)
Once again, folks, this is not difficult. Connect the dots:
1. At least some of the four members of the Council majority will be defeated in May 2010.
2. None of them wants to run for election in May 2010.
3.Turnout is increased in November because voters care more about State and National elections than they do local elections.
4. 2 out 3 Falls Church citizens who vote in November vote Democratic.
5. The four members of the Council majority are Democrats.
6. The four members of the Council majority will be endorsed by the Democratic Party.
7. Those endorsements will be will be noted on campaign material handed to voters when they go to the polls in November.
8. Therefore, 2/3 of the voters who comprise the increased turnout will vote for the four members of the Council majority, thereby guaranteeing their re-election.
That is it. Plain and simple. A naked power play to guarantee re-election. It is so transparent that it would be laughable were it not so serious. I don’t even know the extent to which the Democratic Party leadership supports this proposal. I suppose even the most disgusting stench can be tolerated if you hold your nose long enough. It certainly must be at least embarassing to the many reasonable and fair-minded Democrats in town. And again, as a political Independent, I would feel the same way if the Council members in question were Republicans.
P.S. The May 2006 turnout was low because the four Council members in question ran unopposed. Ironic, isn’t it? Now they want to move the election date to a time when they are guaranteed a landslide re-election. For shame.
P.S.S. To Lawrence Webb: it is way past the time that you can hide behind the “I just wanted to start a conversation” excuse. The Council can ram this through in less than a month.
I would encourage everyone to come out this Monday night at 7:30 pm and tell the Mayor and certain Council members what a disservice they are doing to the Citizens by pushing ahead with this ordinance.
The idea that “anyone” on City Council is thinking about voting on an ordinance of this magnitude in the next six weeks is a total disregard for the Citizens. Whether or not you think it’s a good idea to change the election date, I think we can all agree this is not a change to be taken lightly or rushed into and deserves additional research and public debate. Don’t we at least want the League of Women Voters to update its study from 2001? Or ask other government and citizen groups to study it and weigh in? And what about the School Board, this proposal will change its election as well but I’ve heard very little discussion on what the impact will be.
I have heard Council members say there are lots of people for and against this move, of course everyone has an opinion on it when asked. But I have yet to hear anyone besides a few council members say this change needs to happen immediately. There is no call to action or public mandate for this that I’m aware of.
The unfortunate truth is this rush to take a vote before the end of the year is politically motivated. Council knows they will have to increase taxes and cut services in April, and certain members don’t want to face re-election in May. The Mayor will tell you she’s not up for re-election, but her unspoken majority will be at risk of not being re-elected this May, so I’d say she has plenty of reason to rush this through. But this proposal is not like the budget issues that actually do need Council’s immediate attention, there’s absolutely no reason to rush it.
So again, I would encourage everyone to come out on Monday and tell Council this ordinance is not acceptable and we expect more from our leaders. Once we stop talking about this in terms of changing our system in the next six weeks, then a meaningful discussion can take place, and the Council and Citizens can collectively decide if this is the right move for the City.
Regards,
Mike
I think we should stop and take a breath. If the motivation to change is not politically based, why the urgency? I’m sure council members running for election will feel the heat from the budget changes anticipated before election….that’s the way it is.
I think it should be put to referendum for the City’s voters, in May. I support a change, with conditions.
I believe the change would increase voter turnout (whether these voters care or not about a City election, it would bring it to their attention for the next round); and if it saves the City money, no matter how small the amount, that’s also a plus.
However, the City elections must remain non-Partisan. There should be some code written barring candidates from publicly aligning with a party. A candidate cannot publicize that it should be included in a party slate (no literature). I have been incensed by some of our elected officials, as City officials, endorsing various local and state candidates. They can do as they please as private citizens, but it’s their duty while in office to keep mum about anything other than city business.
Thanks for your report on the work session. One question about your text: It reads:
“Mr. Webb stated that he had contacted several other localities that had made the switch to November and that none had not encountered any problems.”
Should that read “none had encountered any problems”? Otherwise, with the double negative, it would suggest that ‘everyone encountered problems.”
Thanks.
EDITOR: Thank you — the correction has been made.
From the VA law quoted above, it appears that there are 2 mutually exclusive alternatives. A, which council is contemplating; and B, which would require voters to decide and preclude council from utilizing A. Looks like if 10% of registered voters file a petition asking that it go to referendum before council acts, then the decision is taken out of council’s hands.
If council acts it will be before 12/31/09 – so that doesn’t give much time for a petition. I’d sign it though.
I watched the portion of the video that covered the discussion about moving the election. It’s really pretty interesting.
The Mayor’s comment about being offended by people who suggest that only the May voters really care might be in direct response to an email I sent to the council the other day – uh oh! I still find it hard to believe that the real problem is that people don’t know about the May elections. I wish we could find out if that’s really true (and if it is I think there might be better solutions than moving the election – which might not even help solve the problem).
I thought Mr. Lippman’s comment a little after the 3:15 mark of the video was telling. He suggests that the May elections allow a small minority to dictate the outcome of the elections – and he says he’s usually on the other side of that minority. So, he wants to move the election to increase his chances of winner (that’s my conclusion – maybe he meant something else).
I see it the other way around. By holding the elections in May a candidate can raise issues and motivate people to get out to the polls and support them. Apparently, it doesn’t even take that many people to sway the May election. But if the election is in November you’ll have a ton of people voting who don’t know much about the positions of the people running on the specific issues at hand – so instead of an informed and motivated minority dictating the results of an election you have a less informed and differently motivated minority dictating the results. Would that be better?
I know this sounds like I’m bashing November voters who don’t vote in May – but I’m not. I’d love to hear from some of those folks and find out why the vote in November but not in May. I haven’t heard or read a comment from anyone who falls in that category (I’m guessing they don’t read the local blogs much).
Here’s my other fear – the Mayor will support moving the election just to spite Mr. Snyder and Mr. Baroukh. From the video it’s clear that there are deep conflicts between those three, and not just on this issue (the Mayor refers to emails she has received from them that indicate they don’t respect her position). I don’t know Mayor Gardner very well so I have to hope she’d never make a decision just to spite other council members, however disrespectful they might be.
My final thought is – if the Council is considering passing an ordinance that moves the election in 2012 (instead of 2010) then what’s the rush? Can’t they tackle that issue in the spring or some other time? They would have until 12/31/2011 to decide. Maybe candidates running in 2010 could even let us know their position on the issue so we could factor that in when voting.
I still think a referendum on the ballot is the way to go though.
Very well said, Andy, on every point.
Wow — some of the comments in this thread are … interesting. Believe it or not, my experience is that there is actually very little political scheming that goes on in this town. Most people just usually say what they actually believe to be true. Nonetheless, there have always been folks who like to think that there are lots dark conspiracies going on. So be it. Thinking it doesn’t make it so.
Here are a few facts.
- People have been talking about this issue for a LONG time. When I ran for Council six years ago, I had a guy yell at me about how the stupid City Council members wouldn’t move the date to November because of their obvious self-interest.
- There is no reason to deal with this issue immediately. Make it a campaign issue that people can run on — or against — in May.
- Like it or not, a LOT fewer people vote in May than in November. We will all get to see it again in 6 months or so. There will be lots of local ads, yard signs everywhere, politicians knocking on doors — and then 1,000 or so residents will decide the City Council and School Board elections. If that is ok with you, then keep the elections in May.
Personally, I favor a nonpartisan election in November — and that is as a Republican who got elected in May. But, at the end of the day, the world isn’t going to stop spinning if it doesn’t happen. There have always been bigger fish to fry — which is probably why the date has never been moved.
By the way, anyone thinking about running for a Council or School Board position should attend the CBC Prior Candidate Forum tonight (Thursday the 19th) at 7:30 at the TJ Library. A few of us will talk about our prior experiences running for office.
David