George,

There is an old adage which says, "if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it." This applies to the recent debate involving possible change in how City Councilors and the Mayor are selected.

Serving a combined 24 of the past 26 years on the Charlottesville City Council (from 1978 to 2002), of which 10 of those years were spent as Mayor, has taught us the value of exploring alternatives which will make the City stronger. But exploring alternatives is not the same as making change for its own sake, without careful consideration of both intended and unintended consequences. Based on our experience, it is our opinion that City Council not change the manner in which it is organized nor the way in which councilors and the Mayor are selected.

Charlottesville is recognized as one of the best places in the country in which to live. We are home to the number one public university in the country, whose "Grounds" were planned and designed by the country’s first native born urban planner, Thomas Jefferson. The area is rich in history and in architectural and natural beauty. We are populated by many generous and creative people. And local government and its elective leadership deliver high quality services to its citizens in an honest and cost-effective way.

Over the years, the City has invested considerable monies in its schools and in its infrastructure (the downtown mall, parks, and public facilities). It has worked with the private sector to redevelop areas such as the CSX railroad property, supported culture and the arts (such as the McGuffey Arts Center, Municipal Band, Discovery Museum, Paramount Theater, and the new Amphitheatre), and funded programs for the needy, all while maintaining its triple A bond rating.

These initiatives have involved the vision and foresight, commitment and competence of both elected and appointed public officials. And while our means for involving the public in decision-making can always be improved, the City’s commitment to public participation is unrivaled among communities our size. Would the proposals to change the structure of government, then, make the City stronger? Or our elected offices more representative and responsive to the public? We think not.

Those who seek changes focus primarily on two alleged reforms -- a ward system and the direct election of the Mayor.

1. Ward or Mixed-Ward Election of Councilors. The argument in favor of ward voting is that it will ensure a geographic distribution of councilors from around the city and theoretically give the voters in each ward more direct access to a councilor who resides in their ward. Perhaps. But what is more likely is more parochial government, and less attention to the major issues facing the community, which are citywide. If we lived in a large city, a better case could be made for election by wards. But we are small in population (40,000) and the geographic area (ten square miles). Councilors are -- and history shows they have been -- responsive to all of the residents of the city, precisely because all of them are elected citywide. Although historically there have been a concentration of councilors from the northern portion of the city, more of the city’s investment for capital improvements in the residential areas has been in the southern part of the city because of its older infrastructure. Based on our personal experience as residents of the Recreation and Walker precincts, we never were motivated to vote in favor of an improvement on the basis that it would provide special benefit to the areas where we live or the schools our children attended. The question has always been whether the expenditures would benefit the city as a whole.

Admittedly, the Planning Commission and School Board work well with a mixed ward and at-large composition of members. Hence, in the area where residents may feel the need for closer contact with governing boards (zoning and schools), there are ward representatives. But there are differences. First, these boards are selected by the council and hence are accountable primarily to it. And, when the most significant planning or funding decisions are made, the council reviews them from the standpoint of their effect on the entire community.

The risk of the ward system at the council level is that a ward councilor will feel more strongly motivated (in order to be supported and re-elected by the ward) to make decisions and vote on the basis of what is in the best interest of that ward, and not necessarily in the best interest of the city as a whole. This tendency could be exacerbated if ward councilors end up trading votes to get benefits for his/her respective ward in exchange for supporting the proposal for another ward councilor’s proposal. At the federal level we see how congressmen from both parties vote in favor of "pork barrel" projects for each other’s congressional districts often times regardless of the merit of the project. Although no one can say for certain that the political process would be corrupted by the ward system, the tendency to exchange political favors would be real.

2. Direct election of the mayor. Proponents for direct election of the mayor believe that this will provide stronger leadership for the city government. A closer look, however, suggests more complexity. Our city currently embraces the city manager form of government whereby the elected City Council sets city policies and adopts budgets while general management is left to a full-time professional City Manager and his or her leadership team and staff. The chiefs of police, fire and other important departments answer directly to the city manager and, therefore, are protected from the vagaries of political change. As a result, the city is able to hire top professionals in the field.

The mayor is selected by the city councilors and presides at meetings and is the primary spokesperson for the elected city leadership. Utilizing that position, the mayor is in a position to provide leadership and focus for the government. Depending on the mayor’s working relationship with the other councilors and with the city manager and department heads, the mayor can also have significant political influence.

Direct election of the mayor introduces the prospect that he or she may attempt to exercise more direct control over the actual management of the city activities, potentially creating friction between the city manager and the mayor, and potentially compromising the professionalism which is a hallmark of the city manager form of government.

Moreover, if the mayor is directly elected with the intention that the mayor would provide more direct involvement in the day to day operations of the government, that person will only be able to do so if the mayor becomes a full-time position. If that is the case, then many capable civic minded people who can devote 15 to 25 hours a week to city government, which is approximately how much time is spent by the mayor, will be unable to serve because they cannot give up their regular employment.

Finally, elevating the mayor’s position beyond what it is today would potentially lead to a greater politization of the position. There is something to be said for having a mayor whose main focus is service, rather than re-election.

No form of government is perfect. Good city government depends upon elected councilors who are honest, competent, possess a sense of fairness, and who can envision the future of the city. The present system requires that the councilors work cooperatively for the best interest of the entire city. Direct election of the mayor and/or election of some or all of the councilors by wards, would create the risk of destroying the cooperation that is essential to good government. Although some may believe that the direct election of mayors or the ward system would be a positive reform to increase participation and accountability, the inherent potential for abuse outweighs any theoretical benefits. At the very least, we should at least wait on the impacts of shifting the municipal elections from May to the November before adopting further reforms. But, from our view, no other fundamental changes are needed.

Frank Buck and David J. Toscano (electronic mail, October 11, 2004)

Frank Buck served on the Charlottesville City Council from 1978 to 1990, and eight years as Mayor. David J. Toscano served on City Council from 1990 to 2002, and as Mayor from 1994 to 1996.