Previous Issue - July, 2004
 click here for current issue

	election of council members by each of the city’s districts rather than the long-standing “at-large” method (an article on this subject follows, below)
As this committee progresses through the various sections of the charter, you can probably anticipate that the following will be topics generating more discussion than others:
	changing city elections from February to November council member compensation  and establishing method for adjusting same over time pros and cons of hired city manager vs. elected “strong” mayor running the city and question of politics influencing one type of leadership more than the other.  It appears the subject needs further exploration by committee as various members have different concepts/ideas with regard to same.  The underlying concern of some appears to be one of enabling greater input from the citizenry, and the government’s operation being led by someone with a greater sense of responsibility and accountability to the citizenry.  Those on the other side of the issue feel that a local resident elected by the voters to serve as a “strong” mayor performing the duties currently performed by our hired city manager would unnecessarily invite  politics to have greater influence on the  day-to day operations of the city and also introduce the practice of “political patronage” in the “strong” mayor’s filling (or creating of additional ) city employee positions Another suggestion alludes to having a “weak” mayor elected at-large in addition to having a hired City Manager.  (Author’s Note:  This suggestion seemed to indicate that the form of government would remain as it presently is – council/city manager form – but that the selection of the city’s mayor would rest with the electorate rather than with the members of the city council.)
NOTE:  Members of the Charter Review Committee continue to want greater public input to their charter review process currently underway; they report citizen participation and input thus far has been disappointingly low.  If you’re interested in hearing their discussions and/or feel you want to offer public input at future charter review meetings, they occur at 1:00 p.m. in Council Chambers at City Hall on the 2nd and 4th Thursdays of each month through October 28th, at which time the members anticipate their task will be concluded.  Any changes to the Charter this committee’s members agree to present to the city’s electorate for adoption or rejection will appear on the City Elections Ballot in February, 2005.  I also encourage you to attend city council meetings which are held in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 9:00 a.m. on the 1st and 3rd Wednesdays of every month.  They provide an excellent opportunity for you to learn how your elected officials and members of the public view certain issues deliberated in the meetings.  Nowhere will you find two better “prep courses” for casting well-informed votes when the City Ballot is before you next February!

“No,” is the answer to the question I suspect some of you might be thinking right now because of the chapter’s sub-title. And, if so, the question you would be asking is, “Didn’t Council Member Smith-Mooney promise readers right from the start that her articles would be objective and free of political bias?  How can she write an article on this subject without bias when she’s one of our elected council members and the city’s charter review committee just recently decided, preliminarily, that the electorate should be given a chance this coming February to reconsider whether they want to continue the past practice of electing their council members “at-large” or would they prefer to elect them “by-district?”

While it’s conceivable that I could try to influence you on this issue, the fact is … I really don’t view the issue as one where I have a preference as to how I’m elected.  Whether I were placed in office by a majority vote of the city’s registered voters or by the majority vote of only those registered voters residing in my district, I’m confident the manner in which I perform and function as a council member would remain a constant.  In other words, I’d support and work for those things that primarily benefit the greater good of the city – its mission – as a whole.  And, if I felt my district’s unique and specific expectations served that objective, I’d be pushing for them just the same as I’d be pushing for another district’s unique and specific expectations if they serve that objective.  And, if a citizen outside my district were to express a concern to me or a request for action on my part, I would handle it no differently than if the citizen resided in my district.  Except,  in the interests of diplomacy and fairness to fellow council members, if I’d been elected by my district and the citizen contacting me was from outside my district, I’d want to make certain they realized that they could pursue the matter with their own district’s council member instead, if they preferred to do so.  If they preferred not to do so, however, I’d do my best to serve their need regardless of where in the city they resided.

With that said, let’s consider a few of the more significant factors you might want to consider, from “the people’s” perspective, in determining for yourself – “Which is the better method for electing your city council members and, for that matter, your county commissioners as well?”

Incidentally, if you are not aware, not only has our city’s charter review committee recently deliberated this question, but Charlotte County’s charter review committee recently had a discussion of this issue, too; since both the county’s and city’s charters presently stipulate the “at-large” method for electing county commissioners and city council members.  The other fact you might be interested to know is that this is far from the first time that county’s and city’s charter review committee members have deliberated this subject.  Obviously, to date, the electorate of the county and electorate of the city have not see fit to change it to the “single-district” method in either of those two entities’ charters.  That is not to say they would not decide to change it based on either of the current charter review committees’ recommendations if put to the voters as a referendum question on the county’s November 2004 ballot and/or the city’s February 2005 ballot, as our society’s view of politics and government are not constant and unchanging.  In fact, change is necessary for something to become better than the status quo.  And that should be the sole reason for wanting something to change … you earnestly believe there is some greater benefit to be derived from changing that which “is” to that which you are convinced is significantly better.  In determining the comparative degree of benefit, however, one must also compare the potential “downside” factors of that which “is” versus that which you might prefer something “to be” instead.

To assure you that I’m not about to subliminally “sneak in” a list of biased advantages and disadvantages for each of these two methods for electing your city and county representatives, I’ll tell you right now that I’ve no desire to go there; that is a matter of each individual’s right to determine and voice what they believe represents their personal opinion, preference or prerogative.  Assuming we are all discriminating enough to weigh the aspects of a change rather than supporting “change” simply because it provides something different, each of us has the ability and intelligence, if we wish, to construct a two-column chart of the positives and negatives associated with the “at-large” method and another two-column chart of the positives and negatives associated with the “single-district” method as a logical process to determining which, in our own opinion, outweighs the other in terms of offering the most or best advantages versus the least or less significant disadvantages.  And, obviously, one of the most significant advantages or disadvantages each of us will ponder in comparing the two methods will be the behavior one could expect of officials elected by the “single-district” method (regardless of whether it is a “real” or “perceived” expectation) rather than the “at large” method.  In fact, one of the first potentials that comparison would be likely to generate is, “Residents of a district (do/can/most likely) derive more benefit for their own district of the city (or county) when their district-elected official knows it is the voters in his/her district – not the voters of the entire city – who placed him/her in that office; and the degree to which he/she satisfies the district’s expectations while in office will be key to whether or not the elected official receives the district’s majority support for re-election in the future.”  Right after listing this premise in the “advantage” or “disadvantage” column, of course, we will also realize that, in this scenario, there’s the possibility each of the five elected officials will probably be striving to achieve the most benefit for his/her own district, but to accomplish that, each will need the support of at least two elected officials representing two other districts of the city or county.  But, that’s the kind of thought process you should undertake if, in fact, this charter change or any other is placed on the county and/or city ballot for you and the other registered voters to decide in the upcoming November county elections and/or February 2005 city elections.  (Remember, registered voters in the city can vote in both city and county elections; since the city is part and parcel of Charlotte County within which it is located.  However, only a fraction of the county’s registered voters resides within the boundaries of our city, making them the only registered voters in the county entitled to vote in our city elections.)

So much for the obvious!  On the other hand, have you ever considered that “the basis by which a city or county is sub-divided into districts” might be a factor not sufficiently understood and therefore overlooked in terms of weighing the  “advantages” or “disadvantages” of each of the two methods for electing your city or county representatives.  I’ll address this in greater detail in next month’s article.  In the meantime, here’s a clue as to what I’ll be discussing in August’s article and what its implications might be in terms of the two methods discussed.

Districts are sub-divisions of cities and counties.  Each district within a city or county has a population equal to the other districts; and, combined, they comprise the city’s or county’s population.  Chances are, “population” is probably the one and only thing that any district has in common with the others.  Meanwhile every other trait or bit of demographic data associated with the county or city overall is most likely distributed in varying degrees amongst each of its districts.  Hence, each district comprises a portion of the whole but is not identical to the others EXCEPT FOR POPULATION COUNT.  But, what about the county’s or city’s distribution of registered voters – the only ones who can vote to elect their representatives?  Would it matter if , unlike the equal distribution of the total population among a county’s or city’s districts, the distribution of a county’s or city’s total registered voters varied significantly as a percentage of total population in each district???

Please click here  for additional information or if you would like to contact the author of this article, Marilyn Smith-Mooney. Thank you!