The Town of Davidson is considering a change in the town charter that would lengthen the terms of future mayors and commissioners from the current 2 to 4 years and stagger commissioners’ terms so not all are elected at once.
Under state law, the board can enact the change itself, after a public hearing and vote. Some local residents think it should be put to a referendum, and are considering starting a petition drive calling for a citizen vote.
What do you think? Read more background below, or take our 2-question survey now.
The board has scheduled a public hearing on the proposed ordinance Tuesday, May 10, at 6 p.m. at Town Hall. A vote on approval could come at the board’s June 14 meeting, also at 6 p.m. at Town Hall.
Town officials say the idea of longer terms emerged from the town’s Comprehensive Plan meetings two years ago. They say longer terms would create more stability, give commissioners more time to learn the issues, and boost the experience and effectiveness of the elected body. They say it also would reduce commissioners’ campaign costs, reduce town staff time devoted to orientation, and give board members more time to lead and complete long-range projects.
Some Davidson residents have raised concerns about the idea. Some worry that four-year terms would reduce commissioners’ accountability. Others think citizens should have a chance to vote on the change.
CHANGE COULD START THIS FALL
Currently all five commissioners and the mayor are elected every two years. A charter change this June would not extend the terms for the current board, since all their seats are up for election again this fall.
But it would affect the length of future commissioners’ terms: The mayor and commissioner candidates who get the most votes on Nov. 1 would get 4 year terms. Candidates who finished third through fifth would get two-year terms, and their seats would be up for grabs again in two years. After that, those seats would be four-year terms.
A referendum on a charter change like this not required under state law, though it is allowed. Commissioners themselves cold decide to schedule a referendum through a Town Board vote. Or a referendum could be required if 10 percent of registered voters in town sign a petition seeking a vote. Davidson had 8,046 registered voters as of the last election, and the county board of elections currently lists 7,407, so a petition likely would need 750 to 800 signatures.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
We’re asking readers for their thoughts on two questions:
- What do you think of longer terms for town commissioners and mayor?
- Should the board enact the change, or should it be put to a referendum?
We’ll be promoting this survey through the site, via our daily email, and on Facebook and Twitter. Unlike some other online polls, you won’t be able to see immediate results (that makes a poll too easy to manipulate). The survey is anonymous, and users will be limited to voting just once. Comments also are invited as part of the survey.
This won’t be a scientific poll, but we hope it will help inform the debate and generate interest in the May 10 public hearing.
RELATED LINKS
April 12, 2011, “Board starts process to lengthen and stagger terms.” – Coverage of the April 12 Town Board meeting, with more background on the issue.
Download a PDF copy of the resolution the Town Board approved on April 12, CLICK HERE ».)
Current voter statistics in Davidson, on the Mecklenburg Board of Elections website, meckboe.org.
Any action that deprives people of a voting right should be voted on by the people. IMHO, if they choose to make this change, this should go to referendum.
If you are interested in supporting a referendum on this issue, please contact any of the following…
Email: LetDavidsonVote@gmail.com
Facebook: Let Davidson Vote
Twitter: @LetDavidsonVote
The governing boards of the towns of Mecklenburg–from Cornelius to Matthews to the city of Charlotte–are all elected to two-year terms, along with their mayors. The Mecklenburg County commissioners are elected for two-year terms. Both houses of the state legislature (Senate and House) are elected for two-year terms. Members of the U.S. House of Representatives are elected for two-year terms.
There is one compelling reason for these term limits: In a democracy–not a utopia–the people are empowered to keep a Short Leash on those elected to office. Town Board members should not be allowed to unilaterally extend their terms in office, thereby robbing citizens of a fundamental constitutional right.
Well said Mr. Jackson! Thinking back to some of the recent decisions by our Town Board, this idea appears to be a power grab to justify bad choices and maintain the status quo.
FACT CHECK: Just a reminder to make sure there’s no confusion here: The proposal on the table covers only future terms of the mayor and commissioners. Whether this ends up being decided by the board or citizens, it would not extend the terms of current officials. As the story says above, the mayor and board still must stand for re-election this November.
Meanwhile, if you haven’t put in your two cents in our survey, please do so by Friday, May 6.
Yes, the proposal on the table does cover future terms for the mayor and Town Board members, effective after the November election. But the practical effect for the five incumbent Town Board members, and the mayor, will be to facilitate the potential extension of their terms from 2 to 4 years–when they formally run for re-election.
Otherwise, why are they so determined to unilaterally, by themselves, amend the charter–without the people having a chance to vote on the issue? Such an arbitrary vote-among-themselves would settle the matter in June, over 4 months ahead of the November election! And the incumbents, before the filing deadline in July, will have a running start over would-be challengers in gathering pledges of support, and campaign contributions from special interests that have a stake in perpetuating the status quo on taxes and policy. They will be off and running to be “first past the post” in November, scrambling for the first set of 4-year terms. Mayor Woods will have the easiest shot at a longer term in office.
Figure it out. The question of HOW to make the change to the charter (for which there is no compelling public interest rationale) is critical. This important constitutional change certainly does not require an emergency procedure warranting Board action, now. It should go to the voters in a referendum when the turnout is relatively high in a real election. Just how does the argument that it needs to be done “right away” hold water?