38 F
Clarksville
Thursday, March 28, 2024
HomePoliticsClarksville Charter Commission Recap for March 5th

Clarksville Charter Commission Recap for March 5th

Clarksville City Council - Ward 10Clarksville, TN – The Charter Committee met Monday afternoon to continue efforts to update the city charter. A number of discussions were held, but no decisions reached. The mayor continued to press that we need to finish and that some things could be worked at later in the year.

It would be a prudent move to ensure that all issues are addressed and resolved either with the committee or upon the council floor. Two-thirds of the council must approve any charter update and recent efforts to ignore important issues have not resulted in a council willing accept things for political expediency.

Runoffs

There is committee and council interest in a runoff, BUT the devil is in the details. Three groupings have emerged with one supporting runoffs (I’m in that group and so are a majority of ward residents that have contacted me over the past few years), another not seeing the need, and the third weighing the data in order to decide. Those that support runoffs state it is the principal that a leader needs a clear mandate so the bickering that has resulted in past elections can be eliminated.  Those against runoffs say a winner is a winner by whatever margin. The data that is likely tipping the scales in a particular direction are the costs and numbers.

Turnouts for general elections are poor, no matter the race. It is rare to get more than 30%-40% of registered voters to go to the polls. Data from cities that conduct runoffs show miserable turnouts with some as low as 7%. The question becomes should the city pay $80,000 to $100,000 for a special runoff election when so few will vote? Some money can be saved if we hold the general election and runoff in coordination with the usual August and November elections. The city only pays a portion along with the county in November elections and can chip in for the August elections if runoffs go that route.

Some have asked about runoffs after the November election, even if it costs a full amount. The election commission needs 6-8 weeks to revamp voting machines and processes after the November elections, which would put the runoffs at the Christmas or New Year holidays. Early voting has to take place so the regular election day would likely be in January.  That means we would need to push the swearing-in date past the current January 1st.

If the regular election was held in August and no runoffs were needed, a long delay results until the winners take office in January. If the runoffs were needed and held in November, then the candidates must campaign for another couple of months. It seems many cities handle local elections by holding them out of sync with national and state campaigns. Thus, elections are held one month, often the first of August and the runoffs at the middle or end of September. It costs more money, but the process is clear cut and relatively fast.

I have kept you informed about the pros and cons of runoffs over the past few years as charter work took place. Until such an option could be put to a public vote, which appears likely only under a Home Rule charter, we can only make decisions from citizens who will provide input.

Do people really want runoffs knowing the costs, very poor turnout and that very, very few elections see the leader in the general election defeated in a runoff? Based on Ward 10 input, there is a majority that would like to see runoffs, but it is not an overwhelming majority of those that have talked with me. Also, runoff talk seems to ebb and flow depending on who was elected and by how much.

I NEED your input on this topic again. Do you want runoffs no matter the costs and turnout? Do you want runoffs that minimize costs to the voters, but will likely make it harder on candidates in terms of costs and time?  If elections were held that combined both city and county offices in the same election schedule, does that create a problem (I can tell you that folks do have problems with keeping county and city issues separated when elections occur)?  Should council members be required to have runoffs, too, or just have one for the mayor? I need to hear from of you. Are runoffs something that you want me to go to the mat for and take no prisoners?

Mayoral Voting

This issue has surfaced at every charter update effort and this round is no different. Currently, a mayor can vote anytime and on anything. If a councilman is missing or must abstain from voting and a proposal receives 6-yes & 5-vote (an majority approval vote), a mayor can vote to cause a tie that results in a failure vote. The mayor may use a veto and currently can vote to sustain that veto. A mayor may break a tie or not.

In most elected higher government entities, the executive powers are usually separated from the legislative. This way neither branch has more power than the other, also known as the “checks and balances” we all learned in school. However, Clarksville’s government (along with many other cities) is called a “strong mayor” type of government.

The voting capabilities, the ability to create committees, ability to appoint personel are some of the aspects of a “strong mayor” form of government. However, according to Municipal Technical Advisory Service (MTAS) a “strong mayor” government can suffer from two major weaknesses. First, there are usually no minimum professional qualifications for someone to become mayor. Second, such a system can be highly political in the manner it operates.

While there is no effort to do away with a “strong mayor” concept, there is interest to temper some aspects of it. Based on observations and/or discussions with four mayors, to include Mayor Kim McMillan, there appears to be little to no support for weakening any aspect of that authority.

However, many citizens, and some of us on the council, believe it is time to re-evaluate the voting aspects of the mayoral position/power. The current mayoral power allows the mayor to be both executive and legislator. Thus, there is one-sided separation of powers. The mayoral position runs the city, proposes legislation, votes on legislation with the council, can veto legislation, can vote on the veto, and manipulate the legislature (council) into groupings and assignments as desired. The legislature (council) is pretty much limited to proposing legislation and voting on it.

A recent commission recommendation enhanced the veto power of the mayor. No longer will a simple majority overturn a mayoral veto. This actually strengthens the power of the mayor on issues that are deemed undesirable. However, the offset was a strengthening of the separation of executive (mayor) and legislative (council) branches. The mayor would no longer be allowed to vote in order to influence the outcome of a veto override. Thus, the veto override procedure is completely within the authority of the legislative branch, as recognized in state and federal governments.

Another proposal presented to the commission would further limit mayoral voting to only breaking tie votes. This would further separate the mayoral position from manipulating the work and responsibility of the legislative (council) branch from doing its job which is passing laws and budgets presented to it. The proposal spawned a number of discussions with various points and concerns.

Some justify the mayor voting anytime and on anything (except on the new veto proposal) due to it being the only position/person approved by all voters. The point being that ward council members are selected by a small percentage of voters in a defined area. Thus, a mayor should be allowed to vote as and where needed because of that.

If that logic is followed, then the city council must have lost legislative voting power/influence, in regard to the mayor, when it eliminated the at-large concept. However, there appears to be no documented evidence that the existence or elimination of an at-large council hindered or enhanced the need for mayoral voting input as a voice for all people.

In addition, part of the push to eliminate a full at-large council was they did not really represent people in all the various areas and sections of the city. That same argument could apply to a mayor, especially one that received less than 50% of the vote.

Another justification used for the mayor to vote anytime, including Mayor McMillan in past voting debates, has been Robert’s Rules of Order. In Robert’s Rules, the president, chairman, or mayor (in our case) can use their vote to influence the outcome of a vote. However, this justification ignores that Robert’s Rules specifically states that it governs procedures only when there are no contradictory rules established by other governmental bodies. Thus, Robert’s Rules are not justification for keeping the voting rules of the current charter. There are cities where mayors do not vote or even sit at the head of the council.

The bottom line is the mayor would not lose power if the position were limited to voting in tiebreakers. However, the change would limit the mayor’s ability to manipulate and interfere with the duties of the legislature (council). If a mayor wanted something defeated, there is no need to resort to manipulation of a 6-5 vote and voting “no” to cause a tie and failure to pass. The mayor has the veto and can kill an ordinance or resolution if they feel that strongly about an issue that has passed.

It was also mentioned that if something came up that a mayor really supported, he/she would not have a method to show that strong support other than the vote. That is not justification to keep such power. A mayor may show strong support by actions of encouraging the council to vote for something at the council meeting or going on the record as being for something.

I acknowledge that some citizens do not want the mayoral position to vote at all. However, citizens deserve a true majority win or lose vote and not one based on the technicality of a tie.

Should some separation be enforced to divide the power of the executive (mayor) from the actions of the legislative (council) when voting is involved?  I believe they should and many of you have told me the same thing. I would like to read any thoughts you have on this.

Councilman At-Large

The third main topic at this round of the charter was the council at-large concept. Clarksville used to have an at-large council. However, as previously mentioned, citizens believed their interests and concerns were not addressed to the degree that an individual ward council setup does. Thus, the change in council organization took place. However, it is not uncommon that many cities use some council at-large positions along with ward or district divisions.

There is some belief that, while a fully at-large council may not have addressed the concerns of particular areas of Clarksville and made it harder for minorities to run and win office, the ward voting may have gone too far in reverse.  With ward voting, the emphasis has been more toward only addressing the concerns and solutions of one area of town over the total welfare of the city.

In particular, recent zoning battles have shown that council members and localized residential concerns could and sometimes do override what is best for the city. The addition of one to four council at-large positions would rebalance the council without taking away the ability of ward council members.

Another potential plus for an at-large position is its use as the mayor pro-tem (vice mayor).  Such a move would temper the “strong mayor” concept by removing the perceived or real political favoritism and financial gain that can result from a mayor pushing for a particular council member to be the pro-tem.  If citizens want a mayor that has been validated through a popular vote, why not have vice mayor/mayor pro-tem be someone who won the popular vote as well?

I believe the at-large concept would be useful as an addition to the ward setup.  Let me know what you think.

Bill Summers
Bill Summershttp://www.cityofclarksville.com/
Bill Summers is the City Councilman for Ward 10 in Clarksville, TN. Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by the author are not necessarily those of the City of Clarksville or Clarksville Online.
RELATED ARTICLES

Latest Articles