published Wednesday, July 11th, 2012

Moving the city's election?

Chattanooga City Councilwoman Deborah Scott wants the November ballot to include referendums on term limits for City Council members, and on moving city elections from March, in an odd-numbered year, to November, in an even-number year. The former is barely a toss-up. The latter, rightly framed, has much merit. The question is whether the council has the time -- and the will -- to get it on the November ballot.

Changing the date of the city's off-year elections -- Chattanoogan's next stand-alone election is in April 2013 -- to synchronize them with fixed, even-year county and state balloting makes good sense. Scott suggests November because state and national elections are held then and voter turnout is typically heavier than in March. Better yet would be shifting city elections to the August even-year countywide election. That would save the city the heavy cost of an off-year election, and allow use of the November ballot in the event of the need for a run-off election in the city's open mayoral race.

The city's current off-year election wastes taxpayers' money. City residents are, of course, county residents, too, and they should be able to vote in both city and county elections at the same time, as other local municipalities do. One large issue presents an obstacle: To get city officials on an even-year, four-year cycle, the referendum would have to allow a shorter term for the transitional election. The method and legality of accomplishing such a shift would require adequate notice to potential candidates for such an election.

Scott's proposal to limit council members to two terms, on the grounds that the mayor is limited to two terms, has a certain appeal, but its attractiveness has as much to do with the councilwoman's framing of the issue as with the possible merits of change.

Scott -- who said Tuesday that she would limit her own service on the council to two terms if she is re-elected --makes the argument that term limits would expand the opportunity for interested and talented Chattanoogans to participate in government. That's true, but there is no guarantee that the forced evacuation of council seats would produce a rash of qualified officeholders. Indeed, it could lead to a loss of the institutional knowledge and expertise essential to good government.

Besides, council members, like elected officials everywhere, already are subject to term limits by disaffected voters: Voters can turn any of them out in the next election.

The council already is discussing new recall guidelines for the mayor and members of the council. The recent attempt to recall Mayor Ron Littlefield demonstrated the deep flaws with current city recall statutes which differ considerably from state law. The council should move to align the City Charter with state recall regulations, which a trial court has ruled take precedence. If the council has time to address both the recall and a shift it election years, it should take advantage of the November ballot for both measures.

Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.

Why go with the half-measures? Go for a new city/county charter and reform the whole broken system.

July 11, 2012 at 1:41 a.m.
328Kwebsite said...

Moving the election dates would promote corruption and inefficiency.

We don't elect everyone at the same time because that would contribute to a break in services. How would moving the election ensure a continuity of government services?

Take a look at some of these wunderkind we've put in office in the past 20 years. Some of them may have lied about their elementary school graduations. The idea that they are going to arrive in new duty positions in complex organizations like medium-sized city governments: well, it's unlikely that they'll show up to work with their thinking caps on and pep in their step. They'll need time to not only adapt to their new offices; but, they'll need time to understand just what it was they will have been elected.

Consequently, off cycle elections help protect citizens from stupidity that spans several layers of government.

Meanwhile, we all knew when the county mayor was appointed without election that these kinds of delays would be proposed. Look carefully at the charters. These politicos are trying to hang on to the coffers of tax dollars so that they can pump money to their friends all the way through the next election.

If they don't delay or change the election dates, it's harder for them to use tax dollars to pay off their friends. That's pretty much what Republicans do around here: act like welfare queens to sponge ad money from citizens tax dollars. Then they tell us all they're "saving money."

You bet they'll save money. They'll pay for their election ads with tax dollars.

Perhaps they'll use another $328,000 website deal to do it.

July 11, 2012 at 6:21 p.m.

Actually I find that off-cycle election promote that stupidity as it causes a lower turnout, and that leads to less effective choices.

If you're concerned about terms, you can always adopt the alternate-term cycle if you prefer.

July 11, 2012 at 7:54 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »


Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.