THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, March 5, 1995 TAG: 9503040107
SECTION: VIRGINIA BEACH BEACON PAGE: 07 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: Reported by staff writer Karen Weintraub.
LENGTH: Long : 137 lines
City Council members want to hear from the public Tuesday about their political future.
The council is looking for reaction to a bill passed Feb. 25 during the final hours of the General Assembly that would dramatically alter the council's structure and system of election.
The bill was in response to last May's advisory referendum on reapportionment and district voting, and a 6-5 council vote last fall supporting the referendum. Instead of upholding the council and public's decisions, the assembly, which must approve any such change, forged a compromise. Legislators voted to implement one-half of what the council and voters requested and require another referendum to decide the other half.
Under the proposed change, which still has to be signed into law by the governor, Virginia Beach would have seven districts of about 59,000 residents each, instead of the existing boroughs, which range in population from 966 to 144,903. The representatives of those districts would still be elected citywide, as would the other three council members and the mayor.
However, if the voters approve the second advisory referendum each of the seven district representatives could be elected only by residents of their own districts, under what is commonly called a ward system. The bill calls for elections to be held by May 1996.
Most council members, who didn't find out about the compromise bill until Tuesday, were initially upset that the state legislators had meddled in local business. They quickly passed a resolution asking the governor not to sign the bill until council could reconsider the issue and hold a public hearing.
Reached later in the week, however, most said they liked or at least could tolerate the proposed changes. Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, who had joined the 10 councilmembers in asking the governor to hold off, said Thursday that she is drafting a letter to Allen, to express her change of heart.
The council members had different reasons for supporting or opposing the bill. What follows is an explanation of each of their positions:
John A. Baum, Blackwater Borough (population 966 in 1990):
``It stinks,'' Baum said of the state measure. ``I think that's legislation at its worst.''
Baum, who voted against the referendum, said he had expected the General Assembly to avoid taking a position on such a controversial issue.
He thinks residents of Blackwater, whose voice on council would be reduced by the plan, could fight it by making the same arguments that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld 28 years ago. Then, the court found that Virginia Beach's system was fair because it guaranteed the representation of a diverse group of residents.
Linwood O. Branch III, Virginia Beach Borough (8,730 residents):
Branch, whose resort-area borough also would be folded into a much-larger district, said the council explored making structural changes two years ago and concluded that the present system was best. When council members have to seek votes from across the entire city, they are more responsive to all residents, Branch said.
``I get calls from people all over the city when issues arise so I feel my constituency is 422,000 people and I like it that way. I feel I represent all the citizens of Virginia Beach,'' he said.
Robert K. Dean, Princess Anne Borough (66,648 residents):
``There's only one bill that's acceptable to me: The original bill approved by the House, the House committee, the Senate committee,'' Dean said, citing a bill that would have made law exactly what the voters approved. He later said he finds the compromise measure acceptable.
One of the problems with the current system, Dean said, is that council members with larger districts, like his, end up having to attend to the interests of more constituents. The council position is supposed to be part time; but with such a large borough, his council duties are full time, he said.
W.W. Harrison Jr., Lynnhaven Borough (94,765 residents):
Harrison is strongly opposed to the state bill, saying it was hastily written and legally flawed.
``The governor ought to veto it and say to the people of Virginia Beach: `You ought to get your own house straight,'' '' he said.
Harrison favors an earlier bill that called for a referendum in November providing separate ballot questions on equalization of districts and ward representation.
Barbara M. Henley, Pungo Borough (3,592 residents):
When running for election last year, Henley said she would support whatever the voters decided and she did. Of all the council members, Henley was the most disturbed by the compromise, which she said was the worst of both worlds for her rural residents.
Not only is their voice diluted by putting them in a district with 55,000 other voters, but with at-large elections, whoever represents their district could win a seat without rural support. A ward representative would have to be more responsive to the rural vote, she said.
Louis R. Jones, Bayside Borough (73,465 residents):
Jones voted against asking the state to change the city's form of government, but he isn't troubled by the proposal to equalize the population of all seven districts.
``I've never had any problem with reapportionment,'' Jones said. ``I don't care for the ward system.''
John D. Moss, elected at-large:
Moss said he will probably not oppose the state's compromise measure, but is waiting until he hears from the public Tuesday afternoon before making a decision.
``I think that half a loaf is better than none,'' said Moss, who supports both wards and reapportionment. He believes in equalizing the districts by population because ``we represent people, not property.''
Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, elected at-large:
Oberndorf supports the state measure and said she hopes voters will approve wards next year.
Electing members from wards instead of citywide would encourage more people to run for district council seats, Oberndorf said. Convincing voters to support you is difficult without a lot of money, she said. Smaller districts will help candidates who lack rich backers but who can campaign door-to-door.
Nancy K. Parker, elected at-large:
Parker also said she could support the compromise measure, though she would prefer both wards and equal-sized districts. Wards will encourage more people to run for council, she said.
``To go out and raise $100,000 is next to impossible,'' she said. ``But the average person can go door to door and put sweat equity in and with some good friends and a few thousand dollars, you can win an election.''
W.D. Sessoms Jr., Vice Mayor, elected at-large:
``I like the system that we have today,'' said Sessoms, who did not want the General Assembly to consider the reapportionment and ward issues. Sessoms said he ``can live with'' the compromise bill.
``I will accept equally populated boroughs, if I have to in order to avoid the ward system,'' he said. ``I'm adamantly against the ward system. Period.''
Louisa M. Strayhorn, Kempsville Borough (population 144,903):
Strayhorn is pleased with the state bill because it codifies her opinion. She always disliked wards and favored equal-sized districts, although she had promised during her campaign to support whatever the voters approved.
Strayhorn dislikes wards because she thinks they encourage parochialism, and thinks a compromise may be possible to preserve rural representation on council. ILLUSTRATION: PUBLIC HEARING
The City Council will hold a public hearing on the councilmanic
electoral plan at 2 p.m. Tuesday in council chambers at City Hall.
by CNB