JCC Supes Vote to End Staggered Terms

By Desiree Parker Wednesday, December 21, 2011

The James City County Board of Supervisors voted to end its staggered terms in a vote down party lines Tuesday evening.

The three Republican board members felt that ending staggered terms would eliminate the problem of having some residents unable to vote for six years. Democrats disagreed, arguing that if that were an important consideration to the board it could have been listed among the redistricting criteria. Democratic Supervisor Jim Icenhour proposed offering the idea for a referendum vote, but Republicans voted the motion down, arguing that the notion had been well-publicized and that the public had a chance to share thoughts on it well before the vote.

Just over a dozen citizens spoke at the meeting, and their support was fairly well split between those who wanted the board to wait on the decision and those who supported it.

Those who asked the board to at least wait on the vote said the board was rushing to a decision without gathering enough citizen input, and argued a few weeks wasn’t sufficient time to vet the issue.

Some said having all the seats open at one time would discourage voters from coming to the polls and would result in a lack of competitiveness for seats as people would be hesitant to run against an incumbent majority.

One citizen noted that the next census (which triggers redistricting) in 2020 would mean any voters moved in 2021 redistricting would not get to vote in their new districts until the next election in 2023; he argued these would also be disenfranchised voters, so the proposed change wouldn’t solve the problem.

Those opposing the change also argued that staggered terms allowed newly elected officials to benefit from the experience of veterans, and that no public concern had ever been expressed in previous years about the current system. They noted that most jurisdictions in the state have staggered terms for governing bodies.

Those who were in favor of changing the current system echoed the board majority concern about disenfranchised citizens, or those who they felt have been deprived of the right to vote for an unusually long period.

They pointed out that some nearby localities, including York County, have elections all at the same time.

A few citizens who supported the switch argued that it was unfair that staggered terms allowed a board member to pursue one district seat while maintaining another seat at the same time.

Three members of the citizen redistricting committee spoke at the meeting, and they said the discussion on ending staggered terms started in the spring when the committee approved the idea, long before Tuesday’s vote.

The former committee’s head, Jeff Ryer, noted the issue had been played out in the press and therefore had been in the public eye for many months. He said that keeping so many citizens from voting for six years was akin to “discrimination by geography” and was impinging on their rights.

The Board was as split as the commenters on the decision.

Supervisor Bruce Goodson said the idea came from the committee that had been appointed by the current board, and he felt it was important for the current board to make the final decision on the matter.

He said he had heard from many people during the recent election who were unhappy that they were unable to vote due to redistricting, comments Board Chair Mary Jones said she had also heard during the election in her district.

Supervisor John McGlennon, who was one county resident shifted out of his district during redistricting, said the basic argument about disenfranchisement was a “red herring” meant to distract citizens. If the board had wanted to make the issue a priority, he argued, it could have made avoiding the problem a criteria when drawing district lines during redistricting.

If the board had wanted to stop the problem, “it was in their ability to do so.”

Supervisor Jim Kennedy, who had originally asked the board in the spring to include the public in the discussion on ending staggered terms, said he didn’t like the fact that the board often said they wanted to discuss an issue but then either the board or staff failed to follow up and put the issues on future agendas. He also said he didn’t like that the board failed to communicate on issues such as the one in question.

Icenhour offered a substitute motion on the issue to bring the decision to the citizens in a referendum vote. He said the subject of disenfranchisement was landed on because the majority wanted to end staggered terms: it was “a solution in search of a problem.”

McGlennon argued that if the idea behind the change was to give citizens representation, than this would be the best way to do so while still taking some action quickly.

Republicans voted down the measure.

Jones said she was “tired of being accused of not listening to citizens… I have listened to citizens,” and that many people had expressed to her and other board members that this was their desire. Doing away with staggered terms “makes good sense,” she said, and asked the board to “take the politics out of it.”

The board voted 3-2 on the measure, with Icenhour and McGlennon dissenting. The vote means the entire board will be up for election in 2015.