Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, April 1, 1995 TAG: 9504040105
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-9 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: DAN L. FREI
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
I ask proponents of a ward-system referendum to consider that City Council members may have actually done proponents, and more important, the city as a whole, a favor in turning down the specific course put to them that day. Council voted against having City Manager Bob Herbert and City Attorney W.C. Dibling Jr. rush to create a ward plan that would go before the voters this fall.
I was present for every promise made to the voters in the 1994 councilmanic race that ``if elected'' candidates would vote in favor of a referendum on a ward system. Those candidates didn't pledge to support just any proposal to bring it to a vote, and certainly shouldn't be held in contempt, as Artis and others apparently do, for making a sound decision on the particular method of arriving at a plan offered by Councilwoman Linda Wyatt on March 13.
Many may recall the Citizens Task Force, appointed by City Council in 1991, that made recommendations regarding a ward system. As public meetings convened in various places around the city, about 21 people showed up to address the issue, with roughly half supporting the present system. Evidently, there was little public interest then, and it seems there's scant interest at this time. However, the task force recommended:
Maintaining the present system.
Term limits for City Council members.
Revisiting the issue in later years when public interest might be greater.
City Council chose the first.
On March 13, it rejected a not-well-thought-out course of action intended by some to provide political mollification. Now the ball is in the court of serious proponents who still desire to move forward on this subject. Whether using the guide of ward-line options as drawn for the 1991 Task Force by the Fifth Planning District Commission or by constructing a plan of their own, proponents can still advocate the issue without relying on a plan constructed by a busy city manager and city attorney. City Council acted wisely in rejecting that particular tack.
I suggest that proponents of a ward-system referendum conduct a citywide voter survey on the issue, and then encourage a course of action with a longer incubation period. If the proponents requested that City Council appoint a citizens' committee to devise at least two ward-system plans - one or both of which, after a reasonable period of review and public comment, would be put to voters in the fall of 1996 - I believe proponents could reasonably expect a receptive audience.
The 1996 fall elections will have high voter participation due to presidential contests. Having a referendum in that election cycle would allow a greater measure of public sentiment on this subject than in a lower-turnout election cycle. To be fair, a traditionally high-turnout cycle is the better time to put a change-of-government question before voters.
It would also allow sufficient time for a complete explanation of the issue to voters, and for the review and acquiescence of the U.S. Department of Justice. Approval by the Justice Department alone may require a window of six months to a year. To me, it's bad public policy to rush to place a plan before voters that could be nullified by the Justice Department because in its view, it's not in compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
In my view, a committee composed of proponents, opponents, interested citizens, neighborhood groups, scholars and others working together to construct two or more plans - giving voters the option of Plan A, Plan B, or None of the Above - will allow input from a broad range of citizens, as well as the Justice Department, and will not have the flavor of a plan forced in haste upon us.
One reason to consider constructing two or more plans is that there are many different ways a ward system could be constructed: modified, strict, an at-large ward system, etc. All of those should be carefully considered if proponents are serious in their desire to alter our present form of municipal government. At the time of a referendum in the fall of 1996, people would have a yes-or-no opportunity based on a plan or plans that have been arrived at carefully. This timetable would also allow for necessary public education on the issue. It seems to me that a longer period of public education would be desirable from the point of view of proponents if they're to successfully get their points across, and if we're to have harmony in the city as to the acceptability of any possible change in our form of municipal government.
By taking a slower, more thoughtful approach to this important subject, proponents can be assured that they would be able to have a say in the final product, and would be less likely to assert that the plan was faulty should it fail. Although no doubt, as with any process of this sort, there will be dissenters - as there are now to the system under which we have operated since 1918.
I believe the at-large system we now employ is efficient, and compels elected officials to consider the import and interests of minority communities in ways a ward system would not. Antiquated ward politics would likely narrow the range of political thought in Roanoke city rather than widen it.
Nevertheless, we should move forward in a careful, rational manner on this subject because there are those who feel alienated by the present system. When there's a plan or plans worthy of the voters' consideration, and approved by federal authorities, let's then have a vote.
Dan L. Frei is a Roanoke political consultant.
Memo: ***CORRECTION***