Election Date Change Passes 1st Test; Referendum Rejected
By GEORGE BROMLEY
Falls Church Times Staff
By a 4-3 vote the Falls Church City Council last night approved the first reading of an ordinance to move the date of municipal elections from May to November.
Mayor Robin Gardner, Vice Mayor Hal Lippman and Councilmen Dan Maller and Dan Sze voted in favor of the move. Councilmen Dave Snyder, Nader Baroukh, and Lawrence Webb dissented.
Before the vote the Council struck the date of 2010 from the title of the ordinance but did not revise its text, which calls for moving the election date from May to November 2010. The text may be subject to revision before the ordinance is submitted to second reading on December 14. Passage of the ordinance on that reading would make it law.
Prior to the vote the Council vetoed a resolution offered by Mr. Webb which called for a citizen-initiated referendum on the issue to be placed on the ballot next November. The proposal also requested the League of Women Voters (LWV) to update its 2001 report and to coordinate public forums and town hall meetings on the issue.
In a strange turn of events, Mr. Webb declined to move his own resolution forward after City Attorney John Foster pointed out to the Council that it could postpone consideration of the measure to December 14.
Mr. Baroukh then moved the resolution forward, seconded by Mr. Snyder. Both voted for it, with Mr. Webb abstaining and the other four members of the Council opposed. Mr. Webb pledged to offer the measure again on December 14.
The votes followed an extensive debate which was preceded by citizen comments that were overwhelmingly against the move.
Ellen Salsbury, president of the Falls Church chapter of the LWV, urged the Council to slow down and called for it to follow a deliberative process.
Planning Commission Chairman John Lawrence concurred with Ms. Salsbury. Cautioning against a “rush to judgement”, he argued that no date change should take effect until 2012.
Economic Development Authority member Mike Novotny suggested that the Council was losing focus by concentrating on a polarizing issue and that it was taking an unnecessary detour away from the City’s current financial crisis.
Falls Church School Board member Kieran Sharp advised that the Board had discussed the date change but had not decided how it stood on the issue. This is a matter of some concern to the Board as the ordinance would shift the election of its officers to November as well.
Several other citizens spoke against the ordinance, one pleading that the Council “not squander precious political capital by forcing this through.”
Only Environmental Services Council Chairman Bob Lofter-Thun spoke in favor of moving the election to November, stating that enabling more people to have their voices heard in the community over-rides everything else.
Nine emails then were read by City Clerk Kathy Buschow, all but one opposing the measure. By contrast, Mayor Gardner stated that she had received supportive comments from a number of Facebook friends whom she queried on the matter, and Councilman Sze mentioned that a number of his neighbors had spoken to him in support of the measure as he walked his dog.
————————————————————-
Click HERE to watch the City Council Video
————————————————————-
The Council debate followed the lines taken at last week’s stormy work session, with Mr. Snyder and Mr. Baroukh speaking against the ordinance, Mr. Maller seeking to expand and extend the discussion, and Mr. Lippman leading the voices in favor.
The Vice Mayor noted that he had raised the issue of low turnout at the first Council session after the May 2008 election. Maintaining that any reform effort can be easily delayed or undermined, he stated “If we don’t act now nothing will change and we’ll be left with things as they are.”
Mayor Gardner stated that her motivation was to increase voter participation, maintaining that the lower turnout enabled small groups to dominate May elections, which did not “represent the breadth and depth of the community.” She suggested that it was up to the candidates themselves to assure that the elections would not become more partisan.
Councilman Maller, who insisted he would not vote to extend his term of office (which expires on June 30), questioned whether a November election should be on the even-year cycle, as is the case in May, or move to an odd-year cycle. He declined however to vote against the ordinance at first reading, stating he wanted to hear further discussion on the issue.
Mr. Baroukh stated that the issue belonged to the citizenry, not to the Council or only four members of the Council, and that moving ahead swiftly so close to the holidays would lead to increased public cynicism about its process. In conclusion he warned “Changing the date will divide the community at a time when we need to come together.”
Councilman Snyder noted that the move to change the date was not in response to any groundswell of public opinion, that in fact public opinion was against it. After dismissing the proponents’ shifting rationales for action, he concluded emphatically ”I will not go along.”
Video of the entire meeting is available at the City website. To see the date change discussion, scroll down and click on TO9-14, Ordinance to Move Council Election Date.
The Council will convene with the School Board for a joint work session on November 30 to discuss the FY 2011 budget. The final scheduled Council meeting of the year will be held on Monday, December 14.
Stan Fendley contributed to this report.
By George Bromley
November 24, 2009
EDITOR’S NOTE: THE COMMENT BELOW WAS MOVED FROM AN EARLIER VERSION OF THIS STORY, WHICH WAS UPDATED BY THE CURRENT STORY
To give this some context, Mr. Maller made it clear that he would not ultimately support an ordinance that extended his term. So, while he voted to pass this to the second reading next month, unless he changes his mind he won’t support it unless it is changed to not impact the 2010 election. This means that a May 2010 election is likely to happen (which to me means we have plenty of time to sort out this issue and there’s no pressing reason to pass anything this year).
Also, I think it was Mr. Maller who originally suggested modifying the title of the ordinance, not Mr. Sze, and there seemed to be discussion about whether it made sense to update the language in the ordinance itself or if tweaking the title was enough to allow them some leeway on updates prior to second reading.
The vote on Mr. Webb’s proposal almost seemed accidental. The City attorney indicated that passing Mr. Webb’s proposal during this meeting would preclude the original ordinance from making it to second reading, and since Mr. Webb’s proposal doesn’t have the same time restrictions (in terms of how many readings it needs and when it needs to be passed) it seemed like the four members wanted to postpone consideration (which was actually motioned for but then called off when the City attorney pointed out that it would probably be cleaner for Mr. Webb to just bring it back up at the next meeting). So, I wouldn’t read a lot into Mr. Webb’s proposal being shot down. If anything, I think they need to consider the timing of when they pass something like Mr. Webb’s proposal because it could trigger a referendum vote within 30-60 days from passage of the proposal – which isn’t what Mr. Webb is going after (he’s suggesting the referendum be put on the November 2010 ballot).
Of the 10 citizens who spoke at the meeting – I think the 1 that you suggest was in favor of the ordinance was actually in favor of moving the election to November but via a referendum to be held early in 2010. Also, while the clerk mentioned 9 email messages she forgot the one I sent – but I said basically the same thing as everyone else so that’s fine.
I thought it was interesting that none of the people Mr. Sze has talked to who support the move, and none of the Mayor’s Facebook friends, came to speak at the meeting (or even bothered to send an email). I’m not sure what that means – but I thought it was odd. I was sure there would be at least a few people speaking out in favor of the ordinance.
I know Mr. Lippman feels strongly about this issue, and feels like it might be the kind of thing where he needs to go against the vocal opposition in order to do what’s best for the silent (he suggested it was a majority but since I’m sure people on both sides of this issue are being silent I think we can’t assume which is the majority) – but I wish he would reconsider; or put it on a referendum in November, when the most voters turn out, and see if they want to make the change.
I thought Mr. Maller made some excellent points about the issue. The assumption is that November will result in more voters (I think a pretty fair assumption – although it might depend if the elections are on the even or odd number years) and a better election. Mr. Lippman even said that having a greater raw number of voters turn out is the only factor he’s considering on this issue. But as Mr. Malller pointed out, it’s not actually clear if November elections would result in more people voting in an informed way. If we’re not going to move the May 2010 election (which seems clear considering Mr. Baroukh, Mr. Snyder, Mr. Webb, and Mr. Maller seem opposed to it) why not take some time to do some research on this issue?
If the Council passes an updated version of the ordinance next month (one that moves the election to November but not until 2012) and no citizens show up to support it I’ll be really disappointed in the Council.
To give this some context, Mr. Maller made it clear that he would not ultimately support an ordinance that extended his term. So, while he voted to pass this to the second reading next month, unless he changes his mind he won’t support it unless it is changed to not impact the 2010 election. This means that a May 2010 election is likely to happen (which to me means we have plenty of time to sort out this issue and there’s no pressing reason to pass anything this year).
Also, I think it was Mr. Maller who originally suggested modifying the title of the ordinance, not Mr. Sze, and there seemed to be discussion about whether it made sense to update the language in the ordinance itself or if tweaking the title was enough to allow them some leeway on updates prior to second reading.
The vote on Mr. Webb’s proposal almost seemed accidental. The City attorney indicated that passing Mr. Webb’s proposal during this meeting would preclude the original ordinance from making it to second reading, and since Mr. Webb’s proposal doesn’t have the same time restrictions (in terms of how many readings it needs and when it needs to be passed) it seemed like the four members wanted to postpone consideration (which was actually motioned for but then called off when the City attorney pointed out that it would probably be cleaner for Mr. Webb to just bring it back up at the next meeting). So, I wouldn’t read a lot into Mr. Webb’s proposal being shot down. If anything, I think they need to consider the timing of when they pass something like Mr. Webb’s proposal because it could trigger a referendum vote within 30-60 days from passage of the proposal – which isn’t what Mr. Webb is going after (he’s suggesting the referendum be put on the November 2010 ballot).
Of the 10 citizens who spoke at the meeting – I think the 1 that you suggest was in favor of the ordinance was actually in favor of moving the election to November but via a referendum to be held early in 2010. Also, while the clerk mentioned 9 email messages she forgot the one I sent – but I said basically the same thing as everyone else so that’s fine.
I thought it was interesting that none of the people Mr. Sze has talked to who support the move, and none of the Mayor’s Facebook friends, came to speak at the meeting (or even bothered to send an email). I’m not sure what that means – but I thought it was odd. I was sure there would be at least a few people speaking out in favor of the ordinance.
I know Mr. Lippman feels strongly about this issue, and feels like it might be the kind of thing where he needs to go against the vocal opposition in order to do what’s best for the silent (he suggested it was a majority but since I’m sure people on both sides of this issue are being silent I think we can’t assume which is the majority) – but I wish he would reconsider; or put it on a referendum in November, when the most voters turn out, and see if they want to make the change.
I thought Mr. Maller made some excellent points about the issue. The assumption is that November will result in more voters (I think a pretty fair assumption – although it might depend if the elections are on the even or odd number years) and a better election. Mr. Lippman even said that having a greater raw number of voters turn out is the only factor he’s considering on this issue. But as Mr. Malller pointed out, it’s not actually clear if November elections would result in more people voting in an informed way. If we’re not going to move the May 2010 election (which seems clear considering Mr. Baroukh, Mr. Snyder, Mr. Webb, and Mr. Maller seem opposed to it) why not take some time to do some research on this issue?
If the Council passes an updated version of the ordinance next month (one that moves the election to November but not until 2012) and no citizens show up to support it I’ll be really disappointed in the Council.