Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: MONDAY, March 18, 1991                   TAG: 9103190398
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-8   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: M. CARL ANDREWS
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

ROANOKE ONCE HAD WARD SYSTEM; IT WAS INEFFICIENT, CORRUPTING

Apparently none of the proponents are aware that the city had a ward system for 34 years of its existence and was darned glad to be rid of it. Some history:

From 1882 to 1884, Roanoke existed as a town with a small council and an elected mayor who ran things. In two years it attained the necessary 5,000 population to qualify as a city, and the General Assembly granted a new charter effective Jan. 31, 1884.

Much of the population increase resulted from influx of employees of the newly created Norfolk and Western Railway, which was headquartered in Philadelphia for many years. These newcomers brought along ideas of city government then popular in Pennsylvania and other Northern states.

Thus was proposed a ward, borough or sectional system for election of the governing body. Astounding to contemplate today, this plan called for a bicameral system which, for reasons unknown, was modeled after the two branches of Congress or the state legislature. Applied to Roanoke and many other cities, the plan called for a Board of Aldermen numbering 14 men and a Common Council of 22 plus a mayor, elected at large, who not only proposed but often disposed in details of municipal operations.

Despite its small size, the city was run by 27 people, elected from wards numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. In 1904 the numbers were changed to names - Melrose, Kimball, Highland, Belmont and Jefferson - others being created as population grew. In addition, the city was divided into quadrants based on the railway yards and Jefferson Street.

What followed, as might be expected, was extreme sectionalism and rivalry. Aldermen and councilmen, elected from among those who promised the most, quickly adopted tactics familiar in New York City's Tammany Hall or similar political organizations.

What happened should have been foreseeable: Each alderman or councilman advocated his own pet projects for his particular ward or area. Few, if any, looked at the overall municipal picture.

To secure a school, for example, the advocate had to agree for the same thing in other wards. This vote-trading applied to street paving, curb, gutter and sidewalk projects, water mains and sewerage, to name a few.

Words such as "ward heeler" and "rotten borough" became familiar to every citizen. The result was politics at its worst. Jobs in city government were distributed among ward heelers who could deliver the most votes.

There was sharp rivalry between wards and the people who lived therein. There were accusations of graft. Envy grew into false accusations, bitter disputes and even charges of "theft" of municipal projects.

Blue-collar and white-collar voters, often separated by sections, developed hatreds and "rich vs. poor" disputes, usually without foundation. By 1900, just about every Virginia city had this bicameral system. Some, such as Richmond and Danville, didn't succeed in shelving it for decades.

But a revolution was bound to come, and it was launched in 1908 by Staunton, which produced the now familiar council-manager plan: a small council elected at large and a mayor with a city manager, elected by council, who ran the city as a business in budget and expenditures.

The idea spread nationwide. Roanoke voters were thoroughly sick of the old ward system and its obvious evils. In 1915 the Citizens League, the Women's Civic Betterment League, the Chamber of Commerce and other organizations began urging City Council to adopt the plan.

Council eventually yielded and a charter change went to the General Assembly. The change was enacted and our present system became effective Oct. 1, 1918.

The system has worked well. There has been no popular or widespread demand for alterations. The only significant change came in the 1950s when the late Benton Dillard sought and achieved popular election of mayor.

Under the council-manager system, individual councilmen find it their duty to put the welfare of the entire city above all considerations, regardless of the section in which they live. The only remnant of the ward system after three-quarters of a century is voting by precincts in all elections - local, state and national.

Unfortunately, the federal courts have forced a return to wards in some cities, largely for racial balance. Roanoke voters have shown themselves broad-minded. White precincts have backed black candidates who now constitute more than their share of racial distribution in the city. Council has been diligent in appointmemt of blacks to the school board, the library board and many other municipal functions.

All of this demonstrates, it seems to me, that there is not the slightest need to reverse 73 years of good government for a return to the 19th century. Let's not give up the best for the proven worst.