Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, February 7, 1991 TAG: 9102070432
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-10 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: ROBERT FIREBAUGH
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
The existing system's good condition is that black Roanokers are given a fair share in the political process.
The underlying presumption is that because one individual from the black community was elected in 1970, 1980 and 1990, racial equity has been established. However, what is obvious, to all except City Attorney Will Dibling, is that such "equity" constitutes no more than tokenism, irrespective of the individual qualities of Dr. Taylor, Dr. Butler or Mr. White.
There is a sudden realization that council is too distant from the people.
The editorial staff is the only group I know of that finds requests for a ward system to be "sudden"! Every competitive City Council election since 1978 has shown an underlying resentment toward the decision-making process, resulting from unresponsiveness of a council distant from the average citizen.
Per-candidate spending wouldn't necessarily decrease.
This begins four points that can only be described as Orwellian in logic. The ward system would preclude the most expensive mass-media approaches such as television, radio, etc. Candidate efforts would be redirected to less expensive, person-to-person contacts with the voters.
Your reference to the 1990 Democratic campaign, to which I was a principal adviser, is ingenuous. That joint campaign averaged almost $17,000 per candidate. The amount was considered necessary even though the competition could, with some degree of charity, be described as lackluster.
Incumbents for life might be created.
This assumption ignores that the current at-large system stifles much competition from even surfacing, enhancing incumbency within a much more narrow field. The ward system would bring the council member closer to the people; that is what would "keep 'em on their toes." Further, I have suggested a three-year term limitation on continuous service as a companion measure to offset any life-term ambitions.
Roanoke politics could be resegregated.
The implied assumption is that with one or two black-majority wards, all future black aspirants would be restricted to same. Since we are talking mostly about a modified ward system, why assume that no black would seek one of the at-large seats? Further, why indirectly assume that the general community would not continue to support a black running citywide?
Non-racial minorities would be isolated.
Supposedly a future ward-elected majority would run roughshod over those on the losing side of a vote. I would like an explanation for the residents of Southeast, Northeast and Northwest of exactly how they would suffer any more from losing when they have some representation, rather than from losing when they have no or little representation, as the case is now.
This, of course, presumes that the editorial staff has in mind those areas to be in the minority position! Even so, the ward system would ensure that any area's dissent would be registered for future reference and use, rather than be dismissed out of hand as under the total at-large system.
I had had fond hopes that with the exodus of Gene Owens, the Roanoke Times & World-News editorial positions on city municipal affairs would move away from journalistic pandering to the local power elite. But this most recent submission only reveals an effort to be slightly more subtle in direction.
If the "Roanoke election system ain't broke" editorial is the best that the editorial staff, as part of the local intelligentsia, can do, then I find myself in agreement with Councilman Beverly Fitzpatrick, who said in a different context: "Roanoke is dying."
Keywords:
POLITICS
by CNB