City Council Blinks; 2010 Election Will Remain in May
By GEORGE SOUTHERN
Falls Church Times Staff
Following a Dec. 7 public hearing on a proposed ordinance to change Falls Church City elections from May to November, Mayor Robin Gardner staged a tactical retreat, announcing that, at least for May 2010, the City will hold elections as originally scheduled.
Just one week earlier, four Council members approved a first-reading measure to postpone the May 2010 Council and School Board elections until November. The final vote had been scheduled for Dec. 14.
But now, Gardner said, that option is off the table. Instead, Council will consider whether to 1) pass a resolution calling for a referendum on the election date, or 2) pass a modified ordinance to change elections effective in 2012. Such an ordinance would contain language to prevent any extension of a sitting council or school board member’s term of office, she said. A third option could be to vote on a measure that Council member Nader Baroukh might introduce on Dec. 14. Baroukh made clear that he would not support any measure that either lengthened or shortened the term of office of current elected officials.
Mayor Gardner added that another possibility could be not to vote at all on Dec. 14, waiting instead until January.
It was not clear exactly how, if elections are moved in 2012, the terms of three current members would not be affected. Gardner proposed that for the interim (between May and November of 2012), Council could appoint members to fill the 6-month vacancies. She suggested that Council might simply appoint the members whose terms were expiring to serve for the 6-month interim. Those three members are Lawrence Webb, Baroukh, and the Mayor.
The night began with public statements from 13 City residents, some of whom had spoken the previous Monday, on the question of an immediate election date change in 2010. The tally was:
1. Vesta Downer – opposed
2. Ellen Salsbury – opposed
3. John Coleman – opposed
4. Carol DeLong – opposed
5. Steve Rogers – “Council is right to consider the issue”
6. Barry Buschow – opposed
7. Peter Markham – opposed
8. Marty Merserve – opposed
9. Patrick David – in favor
10. Gordon Theisz – opposed
11. Stephen Hill – opposed
12. Christine Sanders – opposed
13. Mike Novotny – opposed
Written communications to the City Clerk from Dec. 3-7 included the following:
1. Leslie Rye — opposed
2. Richard Hunter — opposed
3. Diann Watkins — opposed
4. Jeff Murray — opposed
5. Ken and Margaret Whitehead — opposed
6. Amy Ayre — opposed
7. Linda Neighborgall — opposed
8. Cynthia Smith — opposed
9. Sally Phillips — opposed
10. Margaret Doubleday — opposed
11. Ted Trott — in favor
12. Lisa and Scott Miller — opposed
13. Aaron Taliaferro — opposed
By George Southern
December 8, 2009
I wasn’t able to make it to the meeting and FCCTV was broadcasting the Planning Commission meeting so I didn’t see it on TV (I think it’s scheduled to be broadcast on Saturday and maybe the City will have it up on the web site before that). So, I probably shouldn’t comment too much before I watch it – however there is one issue that seems odd.
The Mayor doesn’t want to pass something that extends terms but the solution is to have Council appoint people to serve for six months… and those people might be the same people currently serving? How is that any different? Since there are 4 seats up for the May 2010 election maybe those 4 would pick the 3 people to serve the extra 6 months in 2012 – and so there wouldn’t be any conflict (i.e. the 3 people wouldn’t be helping select themselves for the 6 month appointments). But what if those 4 Council members couldn’t agree on who to give the 6 month appointments too?
I think I need to just wait for further explanation of this idea.
Andy, don’t wait too long. This thing is a snow ball quickly turning into an avalanche…….There are 3 or 4 proposals floating and they have no idea which one is going to fall first…….
My understanding is that other small jurisdictions in the state moved their local elections to November. How did they handle filling the offices in the time between the old election date and the new election date?
Pete Markham said it best last night:
If you put it to a citizen vote and it goes badly, it can be blamed on the citizens.
If you put it to a citizen vote and it goes well, you can congratulate yourself on your good judgement.
Either way you win.
The Mayor said last night she wanted to get this behind the council. So, I agree with Pete – put it to a citizen vote so that the Council can move on.
I was not there to hear about the alternative proposal that included council appointed sit in members in 2012. The discussion is not yet on the City website. I would like to hear more about it. This sounds complicated.
I haven’t tracked down video of the meeting yet (it’s not posted to the City’s web site as of this moment: http://www.fallschurchva.gov/Content/Government/Council/MeetingWebcastGranicus.aspx?&cnlid=3084) but over on Blueweeds Mike explained that the Mayor’s proposal is to have 3 people appointed by the Council to fill the spots for the 6 months between the end of the current term and the start of the new term for those elected in November. Those 3 people would not be the folks currently on Council. So, for example, the Mayor would end up on the sidelines for 6 months (if she decides to run for reelection in 2012). I suppose that’s one way to do it. It makes more sense to me to just have the folks elected in 2010 (and 2012) serve 4.5 year terms – then everyone ends up serving the term they’re elected for and then the first November election would be in 2014.
Actually, what makes even more sense to me would be to elect people in May 2010 to 3.5 year terms and have those seats up for re-election in November 2013 for a normal 4 year term. The May 2012 election would also be held as planned and those elected would also serve 3.5 year terms and be up for re-election in November 2015. This would shift the City elections away from the national elections and everyone would be elected to a term that they actually serve out.
Of course, my actual preference is to leave the elections in May.
Why are people so convinced that November is a better time to vote? Because more people vote on National and State levels after they have been subject to millions of dollars of adds and phone calls?? Why would they know anymore about local issues than they do in May? If they don’t care, not much is going to happen besides many uninformed votes on issues that they may pull any lever on just to get out of the voting booth. Leave the date alone and make a better effort to inform and educate citizens on the issues….
Dear Editor:
Your recent listing of those opposed to May/Nov election change at the 12/7 worksession/ public hearing listed me as opposed. I was speaking as president of the League of Women Voters and I want to stress that the League has NO position on this issue and has only provided information through our website by posting our informational report. We are opposed to the process that is taking place at this time and feel that it needs more consideration and citizen involvement and education.
Thanks,
Ellen Salsbury
Editor’s Note: Ellen Salsbury is President of the League of Women Voters of Falls Church
(GEORGE SOUTHERN RESPONDS: Thank you, Ms. Salsbury, for the clarification. I’m the one who reported on the Dec. 7 public hearing, and although I’m very aware that the League of Women Voters has taken no position on the overall question of moving the election date, I think it is also clear, as you write above, that the League is/was opposed to the draft ordinance that was up for 2nd reading. If passed, that ordinance would have moved the May 2010 election to November. When I wrote “opposed” beside your name and several others, I meant that you were opposed to that specific draft ordinance which was on the table — not that you or others are necessarily opposed to the concept of an election change. Several other speakers spoke in favor of a referendum, but in opposition to the draft ordinance. Thanks again for the opportunity to clarify that.)