Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport: Council Election Issues Charter Review Committee Report regarding Council Elections Issues (Draft 1: June 15, 2005, by Michael Riedeman) Issue 1: Should the number of city councilors (six) change? Issue 2: Should a ward system be instituted for councilor elections? Issue 3: Should term limits be imposed on city council and mayoral positions? Issue 4: Should city councilors be elected at-large rather than by position? Issue 5: Should city councilors be elected through instant-runoff voting or some other preferential voting system other than the current plurality voting method? A) History The first three issues arose in committee discussions, the last two issues arose at the public forum hosted on January 20, 2005. B) Research Interviews were conducted with numerous individuals that have been directly and indirectly involved in City government. Issues 1 and 2 employed research from "Ward Electoral Systems in Oregon Cities" by John Rehfuss, September 2003. C) Summary of public input Discussions held at the Public Forum at SOU on January 20, 2005, (an estimated seventy citizen attended) yielded the following results: 1. Approximately two-thirds of participants voiced a preference for retaining six councilors. 2. A small majority expressed a preference for retaining at-large elections over wards or mixed systems. 3. The vast majority of participants spoke in opposition to term limits. Several group tables raised two ideas not listed among the topic discussion issues and expressed significant interest in these: 4. The election of councilors by determining the top three vote-getters to be the winners of the election, or 5. Instituting an instant-runoff voting (IRV) election system. Following the January 20, 2005, public forum, little or no public interest was expressed in the first three issues. Following the January 20 public forum, several written and verbal comments expressed additional preference for the top three vote-getters system. This topic was discussed further by committee members and a few attendees at the May 12, 2005, meeting. Following the January 20 public forum, IRV was the topic our committee received the most public commentary about with a substantial number written and verbal comments received, all in favor of an instant-runoff voting system or similar method of election. D) Summary of Charter Review Committee deliberations Committee decided to table the first three issues on February 3, 2005, following the public forum, due to lack of significant public or committee interest. Regarding top-three vote-getters A motion was made on May 12, 2005, then withdrawn, for the top three vote-getters in bi-annual council elections to win council seats. Comment was made that the Committee needed more evidence of the benefits before putting this option to the voters. Barbara Christensen, who is the Elections Officer for the City of Ashland, explained that with the current system, candidates often jockey around before deciding which seat they are going to file for and stated that she believed that the current system allowed for more diversity on the Council. Support was expressed for the motion and comment was made that this would bring clarity to the election process. Comment was made that candidates running against each other for specific positions brings substance to the process and concern was expressed that the proposed system could back-fire. Comment was made that the top three system could turn into a popularity contest and statement was made that there is not a problem with the current system. Statement was made that the Committee has already proposed enough big changes. Recommendation was made for the Committee to consider several scenarios before supporting this change. Following the committee voted to recommend that the top three vote-getters discussion, shall win Council seats . Regarding IRV A motion was made on May 12, 2005, then withdrawn, to not consider IRV. Comment was made that additional research needs to be done before inserting this provision into the Charter. At the June 9, 2005, the committee deliberated and voted on IRV as follows: City Attorney Mike Franell stated that the current charter language allows for the top three vote getters to be awarded council seats, but does not provide for a majority election, which would initiate IRV. He explained that the burden of conducting elections and counting votes lies with the County. If the City were to adopt IRV, the state would challenge IRV and the City would likely end up in court. If the courts ruled that the City could adopt IRV, Ashland would have to administer its own elections and it would be at the community's expense. Mr. Franell stated that the voting methodology should be a decision of the citizens of Ashland, and should not be left to the Council. He added that if the citizens wished to change the voting methodology, they could use the initiative process provided by the Oregon Constitution. Mr. Franell stated his opinion that if the City adopted an IRV system, the City would likely prevail in the likely challenge from the State. Mr. Franell also noted a potential problem with majority voting and stated that this would cause problems in the event that one councilor vacated his seat prior to the end of their term, in which case at the next election, they could have four vacant seats at one election. The committee voted to not make a recommendation on instant run-off voting, but include in the committee's report to the Council the thoughtful input received from citizens. Suggestion was made for the committee to send their report to the State Legislature. Comment was made expressing trust in the City's initiative process. A motion was made for the committee to recommend that the Council form an Election Review Committee to study the election systems in Ashland. Motion died due to lack of second. E) Recommendations from the Charter Review Committee 1. Retain the current 6 councilors. (no change) 2. Retain the current at-large voting system as opposed to wards or a mixed-ward system. (no change) 3. Do not institute term limits. (no change) (a recommended change) 4. Top three vote-getters shall win Council seats. 5. Retain the current plurality election system but note the thoughtful input received from citizens in support of IRV. (no change)