Davidson’s Town Board on Tuesday decided to drop a proposal to shift to 4-year staggered terms for the mayor and commissioners. In a special meeting at Town Hall, commissioners voted 3-1, to rescind a resolution approved at the board’s July 17 meeting that called for a referendum this November on the idea.
Commissioner Jim Fuller cast the lone voted against the motion, saying he wished the town would hold the referendum to get a true measure of how citizens feel about the issue.
The vote came after a 25-minute session in which several commissioners said they felt the board wasn’t adequately prepared or unified on the issue to bring it to citizens for a vote. Commissioner Connie Wessner was absent, but sent a message via Mayor John Woods suggesting that the board withdraw the proposal.
Commissioners had voted last week to call a public hearing and start a process leading to a November referendum on a proposal to lengthen board members’ terms from the current 2 years to 4 years, and to stagger their terms. But after technical questions were raised about wording of the July 17 resolution, and after some soul searching by commissioners, the board called Tuesday’s special meeting to revisit the issue.
Commssioner Laurie Venzon said she had changed her mind about four-year terms after deciding arguments in favor of the idea weren’t “compelling.” “I don’t really feel like they’re compelling enough for me to support a change any more,” she said.
After talking to voters, Ms. Venzon said she came to realize that people weren’t clamoring for the proposed charter change. And some felt that longer terms would take away voters’ “flexibility” to make changes.
“This wasn’t a hill I was going to die on,” she said, as she proposed that the board withdraw the previously approved resolution.
Ms. Venzon also said four-year terms could have a negative long-term impact if citizens elected a majority of commissioners with extreme views – on one side or another. A Tea Party-influenced majority, for example, could decide to stop spending. Likewise, she said, a majority could get elected that was “sick of seeing” the town unable to complete its capital projects list, and might decide to raise property taxes four cents.
‘They could change a lot in four years,” she said. And voters would not have a chance to make a “mid-course correction.”
Commissioner Rodney Graham, who was the only board member to vote against the resolution earlier this month, repeated his opposition to the idea.
And Commissioner Brian Jenest asked out loud, “Why can’t we do this?” He was referring to the board’s inability over several years to build momentum for the charter change. He noted that even when the board did manage to vote for a referendum recently, “event our process wasn’t correct.”
“I’m not sure we have the support. I didn’t find any really good reasons for us to move forward,” he said. “I think we really need to drop it … I’d like to see us not talk about it for a long time.”
Added Mayor Woods: “We as a team don’t have a vision that is singular or concentrated or unified in this particular area.” He agreed that the board should table its discussion of longer terms.
About a dozen citizens and town staff attended Tuesday’s meeting. Among them was Rick Short, who lives in the Bradford neighborhood and has been an outspoken opponent of the change. Short helped raised questions about the wording of the July 17 resolution, which led to Tuesday’s special meeting.
Asked to comment afterward, he said only, “I’m glad they withdrew it.”
The idea of four-year terms for town commissioners is completely untenable. The town board has far more important issues to address rather than wasting time and money on discussing four-year terms and the Red Line. Ms Venzon’s comment about Tea-Party influence was most inappropriate; it reflect complete naivete and the typical wooly-headed thinking of the town board.
Bennett Quillen
David,
Because of the importance of this issue and because you quoted some of my colleagues at length, I’d like to share the message John read for me as I traveled back from my school meeting in Raleigh today:
Dear John,
On reflecting about the special session (which I regret that I must miss tonight because of an out-of-town, work-related meeting), I wanted to express some concerns in writing. I hope you will read this message at tonight’s meeting at an appropriate time because I want to be certain that my positions are clear to Town residents.
As I have said since the beginning of this dialogue (now nearly two years ago, I think), I support the recommendation in the Comprehensive Plan to move to 4-year terms for both the mayor and board members who are elected in the future. The shift supports the stability of leadership that we have enjoyed here in Davidson by dint of tradition and luck. It acknowledges that such stability has served us well and that as we grow and mature as a town, the job and the attendant learning curve becomes more complex–probably not something we want to continue to trust to luck. And, I desperately want to believe that longer terms might help balance the pressure for near-constant campaigning to which some elected officials fall prey, particularly as the decisions they’re asked to make become more complex and thus potentially controversial.
I’ve made it no secret that I am not a fan of using a referendum to achieve the recommended charter change. I am convinced by the literature of my discipline that referenda are rarely the pure expression of populist sentiment that their proponents nearly always make them out to be. More often, referenda exaggerate the power and representativeness of a very vocal minority of stakeholders. Moreover, referenda allow elected officials to duck the often unpalatable task of expressing a clear position by casting a vote. To the degree communities use referenda constructively, these vehicles work best when they help the community coalesce around a vision that local leaders can clearly and convincingly articulate.
Tonight’s special session suggest to me that we lack a clear and well-articulated vision for moving forward. More importantly, it feels like the inclination to tinker with the original resolution belies a lack of support at the table for lengthening terms and an unwillingness to simply name it as such. My preference would have been to address the proposal directly through an up or down vote by the commissioners. I was willing to support my colleagues in a referendum effort to the extent that it represented a collective effort by this board to gauge and build community support for 4-year terms. I am unwilling to support a referendum as a veiled proxy for defeating the proposal without registering a “yes” or “no” vote. It feels very much like an abdication of our duties and a disservice to the community. We are elected to lead. We are not elected to add to the confusion.
Given the lack of a singular voice on this proposal, I ask that we withdraw the resolution altogether. And I recommend that we expend our energy on building our capacity to craft a vision for leading this community and making decisions that benefit the whole community rather than placating highly energized, but perhaps less than representative, detractors.
The current format of 2 year elected terms for the Board and Mayor in an at-large setup is the most democratic allowed by North Carolina state law. As a voter, I see that as a good thing, and I am glad it will be kept that way.
I respect our commissioners for having the conversation and deferring calling for a referendum until they are aligned with a compelling reason to change. To be clear: Commissioners will only move the community conversation to a community vote; they would not be surreptitiously be giving themselves 4 year terms. That decision ultimately will be decided by Davidson voters. Unfortunately there have been comments in this and other articles that seem disrespectful and lack a civil tone. I hope through this and future community issues we treat each other with civility and respect; particularly when we disagree. Our commissioners and mayor have acted with transparency and great care to engage citizens, they did so last evening at yet another public community chat. They deserve credit for many good things happening here in Davidson. I’m happy to call Davidson home.
Please allow me to add a footnote to your excellent coverage of the 4-year term issue.
Each of my colleagues voted by conscience. I respect each commissioner, and each vote. We had principled disagreement, a healthy thing in public discourse. My position was consistent and straightforward throughout: Ask the people; trust the people’s judgment.
Our town board has muddled with this issue for 5 years or more. It’s been on and off the table more times than a plate of fried chicken at a Sunday picnic. So, I saw no benefit in tabling yet again, nor in rescinding, thereby deferring a final decision until some obscure time down the road.
To me, the division of our town board was inconsequential; I found no compelling reason for us as a body politic to urge a position to the voters, for or against. Rather, because this oft-asked question involves our charter, our constitution, this seemed to be a propitious moment to ask our citizens, not our town board, to engage in public debate … and then to take the definitive step of voting 4-year terms up or down in November. If the vote were to be as I expected, we would retain a system that has served us well, and the issue would be put into storage, cold storage. If we changed, by vote of the people, I would have supported such decision.
While we did not follow the procedural route I preferred, I am quite comfortable with the result. I sincerely hope this week’s vote carries with it the implication of “4-year terms, RIP.”
Best, Jim
Mr. Fuller is a Davidson town commissioner