First, check out this article from last week’s Independent Tribune.
Now, answer these questions:
1) Why do local Democrats REALLY want district representation?
2) Why is it so important to Coy Privette to push the election of the proposed commissioners seats until 2010?
For background: here are the two bills filed in the General Assembly: Executive Board Option and Appointment Option.
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Subscribe via E-mail
25 responses so far ↓
1 Steve Smith // Jun 3, 2008 at 11:34 am
1. District Representation means gerrymandering. Democrats love gerrymandering. Therefore Democrats want District Representation. Simple as that.
2. I don’t why Coy wants the elections in 2010 unless it is to save the cost of a special election.
3. No matter how you polish it up, 2 more Commissioners will cost more that the current 5. I am against the cost of government going any direction except down. Therefore I will vote against increasing the Board of Commissioners to 7, no matter what the reason.
2 Justin Thibault // Jun 3, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Steve -
Seems a reasonable enough explaination. In the Dems defense, there’s no way to carve up the county in 5 or 7 pieces that doesn’t result in at least one Democrat seat on the board.
Neither one of the options in the legislature call for a special election.
One allows the executive boards of the parties to put two more names each on November’s ballot and another allows the Commissioners themselves to appoint two people to the Board.
Try again. The answer is much, much simpler than you think.
Hint: It’s pure arithmetic.
3 Bob Carruth // Jun 3, 2008 at 12:33 pm
UPDATE -
Last night, Commissioner Mynatt proposed a very non-political solution, that makes sense. We will be discussing it at our June 16 meeting, and vote to send it to our legislative delegation. In a nutshell:
1. Filing for the two new seats will coincide with the school board filing period, and will be open to anyone who wants to file for the two seats. The new seats will be voted on separately from the existing election.
2. The two seats would be non-partisan until the 2012 election cycle, when they would revert to partisan.
3. Districts would be drawn after the new board is elected in November, and would not be applicable until at least the 2010 election.
Some things I still see that need to be worked out:
1. How will the two at-large seats be chosen.
2. Who will do the “stubby pencil” work to draw the districts?
3. Will we need to go back to the legislature to have the final district plan approved, or do we at that point do a referendum?
Steve - As for your concern about cost, a commissioner makes about $17,000 per year. Throw in the extra admin support & some travel reimbursements, and you are probably looking less that $60,000 in additional cost. Given that having 7 members on the board will help provide for better oversight of the county government, and more opportunity for the board to participate in other organizations and entities, I think it is a good investment.
Also - another hint. The reason I like the idea of the two new commissioners being elected in a separate manner on the ballot, means people hopefully won’t get the impression I am pushing for this because it gives me a better chance of getting re-elected this fall, since I would only have to finish in 4th place - ;-).
3.
4 Justin Thibault // Jun 3, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Bob - Thanks for the hint. I like the Executive Board idea without districts; but I have obvious biases.
5 Liz Poole // Jun 3, 2008 at 4:09 pm
I am not in favor of district representation in any form.
Because I had to participate in a primary election, I think the two seats should be done next year when the City Council election is done and that the two winners serve for 3 years.
By doing it with the school board filing, those candidates wouldn’t have had the expense or the pressure associated with running in the primary yet they would get the same position in December as the ones who have earned the opportunity to run as Republicans in the General Election. Also, the Republican candidates who didn’t make it out of the primary get a second chance immediately eventhough when we filed in the primary we had to sign a statement that if we lost the primary election we would not run as an independent in the general election. By having an extra election in Nov., any candidate who didn’t win the primary would be in conflict with that.
Lastly, the Nov. ballot will be confusing enough and long enough with the current candidates but to add a second commissioner election will really confuse the general public who don’t often pay attention when they vote.
I would prefer that the two parties nominate two candidates each and those candidates run with the City Council election in 2009. County Commissioners are currently partisan and unless the move is to go non-partisan then it should remain partisan. If a sitting Commissioner is replaced then it falls on the local party to make the nomination. This should be the same except the general public needs to have the final vote.
Oh, the thing about 2010 is that would give Coy an even better chance of getting re-elected because there would be the current 3 seats plus the 2 additional seats and Coy would come in at least top 5. If it is done next year, then no one in this year’s primary and no one in 2010 will benefit. It would have to add two new candidates.
I’m not certain that this reads what I’m thinking so I’m guessing that someone will gladly point out faults with my suggestion. I just got back from a family vacation in Ireland and I’m running on Sundrop and little sleep right now.
6 Justin Thibault // Jun 3, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!!!
That’s right, Coy Privette would love a 5-way race; because he would likely win the nomination for one of those slots.
As for your 2009 idea…there’s only one glitch: the BOE reporting requirements for municipal elections follow a cycle that’s different than those who run in even-numbered years. This could cause confusion to those who want to run for re-election in 2012…possibly.
But, thanks for pointing out the “I-won’t-run-as-an-independent” oath issue.
7 Steve Smith // Jun 3, 2008 at 5:20 pm
District Representation is a terrible idea as is the 7 member Commission. Your’e gonna end up with the same political mess that Mecklenburg has. If you think the Commission Meetings go late now wait until you have 7 members with 5 from districts arguing over everything from who sits where to who gets to speak first. You’ll have to cut the public speaking time from 3 minutes to 30 seconds just to keep from going until 6 AM but I guess I’m in the minority here. Liz has a point about the campaign process. Doesn’t seen fair that the two new seats get to run as independents without going through the primary process as Bob and Liz did.
8 Thierry Wernaers // Jun 3, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Question to Liz Poole:
You say this:
But nowhere in your post do you explain why. Can you elaborate?
9 Liz Poole // Jun 4, 2008 at 11:19 am
I haven’t heard a logical proposal from anyone about how the districts would be created. I don’t believe that you say “go to district representation” without a plan on what that would look like.
When the City of Concord went districts, they protected themselves by drawing district lines, so will the commissioners draw skewed districts to protect the incumbants? Or, will they draw lines to pit two known candidates against each other to get rid of one? Look at the I-85 district for Mel Watts or Robin Hayes’ district on how the party in charge draws lines to suit their political purposes. There needs to be a plan (or two or three) presented not just fluff. (If this has been presented then I missed it, sorry.)
The Parks and Rec board is by district. They have had trouble finding people to volunteer based on where they live and they have had people who wanted to get involved but there was someone else in their district on the board so they couldn’t do it.
Commissioners represent the needs of the entire county not a wedge based on where they live. We should have the opportunity to vote for who we think is the best person for the job and not because they live in a certain district. Also, anyone interested in running should get to run (in a primary, pay the fee) and not be limited to where you live or the “two” at-large seats.
I just think this is a train gathering steam with the track being laid out in front while it is increasing speed. I’d hate for there to be quick sand somewhere in the distance that no one has surveyed.
District representation is the smoke screen to get representation spread throughout the county when in reality it is a limiting tactic on who we get to vote for. Yes, I know the proposal is that everyone votes for everyone (like the City) but that district format has served to protect the incumbants.
Disclaimer: I’m not saying that I don’t like the members of the city council. My husband is a city employee and he likes his job. I don’t follow other counties so I don’t have details on how they function.
Likewise, I’m in favor of expanding to 7 members but it needs to be a logical, planned expansion and not one done in haste. This is the first commission to publicly talk about these possibilities but there needs to be more discussion and input from the community. Of course, one problem is “the community” doesn’t show up and give input, they just complain in small groups or join a blog where information, true or false, with or without facts to back up a statement, are posted for all to see.
All of that said, I am open to discussion. If you can convince me that districts representation would be beneficial, I am willing to listen. I just haven’t heard any convincing arguments so far.
10 Justin Thibault // Jun 4, 2008 at 11:30 am
Liz - I agree with you on the experience we’ve had on the P&R board. Also, the districts on the P&R board are not proportional to population like Commissioner’s districts would have to be.
Because of the limiting of candidates, I think the City’s District representation model is horrid; because it takes the worst of both worlds (the limiting of potential candidates by district and the “tyranny of the majority” of an at-large election) and puts it together in a Politburo-style incumbency scheme. Downtown Concord has a bigger effect on the representation of my district than I do and their needs have been better served than ours.
I resemble that remark.
11 Liz Poole // Jun 4, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Yes you do, and a good resemblance it is too.
12 Aaron // Jun 4, 2008 at 3:49 pm
I’d say that’s more of a problem with the politicians and less of a problem with the “community.”
The only person I’ve noticed who is a sitting commisioner spending more than a second making it known that they read this is Bob. I’d easily say that more of them do read it but choose to remain silent but seeing is believing…
13 Justin Thibault // Jun 4, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Aaron -
Well, I might be to blame for that. The mass e-mails I *thought* were getting to everyone weren’t. I’ve fixed the issue and will probably post a “Mea Culpa” post here in a little bit.
14 Steve Smith // Jun 4, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Liz
I agree with you concerning district representation but not with expanding the County Commission to 7 members for my aforestated reasons. Many people cannot attend the Commission Meetings for various reasons. I find the e-mail system a very good way to communicate with my representatives and this blog is an extension of that system. Thank you, Bob and others who are willing to communicate through this media. One would hope that you are astute enough to glean the bull**** out of this blog and find alot of good information here. You are well advised to proceed with caution on District Representation because Gerrymandering is an ugly beast to behold and once released, can never be caged again. You site two very good examples of Gerrymandering that can never be changed again, if anything it just continues to get worse. Congrats on your victory in the primary, I look forward to voting for you and Bob in November.
15 Jim Ramseur // Jun 4, 2008 at 10:05 pm
The City of Concord has used District Representation (originally called Wards) for over sixty years that I am aware of. These Districts must be redrawn every few years to insure the population is equal in each District. Council Members can not be re-drawn out of their District. Council Members must live in their District but are elected Citywide and therefore responsible to all Citizens. Justin obviously disagrees, but I think it has worked well for Concord.
16 Justin Thibault // Jun 4, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Jim -
Of course you think so, the system has provided you with a safe seat.
17 Steve Smith // Jun 5, 2008 at 8:08 am
Justin isn’t the only one that disagrees with you. I don’t live in Concord but looking at some of the decisions that Concord has made in the past, I would question just how well district representation has worked for Concord. The decision to rezone the drag strip at Lowes Motor Speedway comes to mind.
18 Liz Poole // Jun 5, 2008 at 11:25 am
Ponder this with the current proposal to expand the commissioners. Reference today’s Cabarrus Neighbors article.
Bob and I won the Republican primary. What if (as noted in the article) Holly and Marcie are included in the expansion seat catagory? What if the Democrats take one of the current two commissioner seats? What if Holly and/or Marcie win an expansion seat?
That means that someone who lost in the Republican primary could become a commissioner instead of someone who won the Republican primary.
I haven’t heard anyone bring up that projection. If Obama brings out the Democratic vote, it could not only result in a Democrat getting elected to the commission it could also mean a Republican who lost in the primary could win the expansion seat in the general election over a Republican who won in the primary.
If there is to be an expansion, and three current commissioners are in favor of that move, then it should be done with the municipal election next year and not this November.
Also, if it is a free for all for the two expansion seats what if there are 10 (or any other number greater than 2) people who throw in their names, and if as I’ve heard proposed the “non-partisan” election will include R or D next to the hodgepodge names, how will that relate to straight party voting?
This needs more time for discussion and not just one commissioner meeting on June 16 with a three minute limit. The devil is in the details.
19 Justin Thibault // Jun 5, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Liz - I’m probably flip-flopping here; but I don’t think the seats should be expanded for the 2008 or 2010 elections.
It’s really unfair to all that ran before.
I think a plan should be thoughtfully worked out in 2009 and 2010 and put on the 2010 ballot as a referendum. It should have the following characteristics:
- Include 7 members.
- Include 4 or 5 districts with 3 or 2 at-large seats, respectively. (4 districts with 3 at-large seats or 5 districts with 2 at-large seats)
- The timing of the elections would be such that all of the districts would be up for during the Presidential election year along with one at-large seat. The remaining 1 or 2 at-large seats would be up during the off-year elections.
- There would be no district-residency requirement. There’s no good reason to have one. Eliminating this superfluous requirement increases competition - more possible candidates appealing to fewer voters - which is why the incumbents on the Concord City Council oppose it.
- The school board would be arranged in a similar fashion to the Board of Commissioners
The ballot would be just a little simpler - which is great. Think about it: you vote for your district rep and an at-large rep (a super-majority of the board) every Presidential election year, and than one or two during the off-year. Most people only vote once every four years. So, most of the board would have been subjected to the scrutiny of the greatest number of voters. The same is NOT true of our current board - where the majority are elected off-year.
Of course, I’d like to see a simpler ballot all around. Seriously, why should a 30-year-old engineering geek whose closest encounter to modern agriculture is taking pictures at Patterson’s Farm every fall be picking an Ag Commissioner?
20 Liz Poole // Jun 5, 2008 at 1:51 pm
You make good points. I wouldn’t call it flip flopping because we should listen to multiple sides of a discussion and then form an opinion. I much prefer to listen for that reason and not jump out in front.
I would not include school board in the discussion. That is a decision that should be proposed by the school board just as this has been proposed by the county commissioners.
I do think doing anything this year or in 2010 is a problem and should be avoided. More discussion needs to take place. Legislation with a sunset clause of Dec. 31, 2009 could be entered to expand the board which would allow for time to propose a fair plan. I wouldn’t want a referendum to expand the commissioners at the same time as a bond referendum and not knowing the timing of that, I’d have to wait for a date to propose.
I agree with your ideas. I had not thought about district without residency.
Let’s hope that the people who will be making a decision (current commissioners, Sen. Hartsell, Reps. Barnhardt and Johnson) are reading this blog.
21 Justin Thibault // Jun 5, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Liz -
Since it’s a two-year long discussion, isn’t it worth it to make it easier for the voters?
22 Steve Smith // Jun 5, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Justin
Its seems that you have given this some thought. And if we must have 7 members on the Commission and District Representation then you plan is the best by far so far. Now if you will show up at the Commission Meeting and reduce this to a three minute presentation, we would all be in your debt.
Liz
Now you want everyone reading the blogs. See I told you that there was alot of good information on this blog. It should be required reading for every elected or appointed official in Cabarrus County. Glad to see that you are one of its readers and now a contributor as well.
23 Justin Thibault // Jun 5, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Steve - Thanks for your kind words. In defense of the elected officials - they haven’t been getting as many e-mails from me as I’d originally thought. So, many of them are just finding out about this thing. I’d imagine that you should see some more content from officials and candidates as we near election day.
24 Liz Poole // Jun 5, 2008 at 4:40 pm
I have been a reader for a long time. I also know that some reporters are readers. I’ve known Justin since this started when we were on the Parks & Rec Board together. I enjoy reading everyones’ thoughts more than I like typing mine. I wish I knew something about each of you and could put a face with a name but I guess that will happen eventually.
25 MarkMartin // Jun 9, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Justin - let me first apologize for my absence during the last several weeks. I am reading through the site getting caught up.
Let me say that I am happy to see you develop an expansion plan that clearly is simple and politically correct. It is hard to believe that it has taken this long for this topic to get this much attention since I first mentioned it during the BOC primary back in 2004 when I ran.
I have always supported expanding the board to 7 members and district representation.
Leave a Comment