For you the voter, Measure 2-159 means less representation, and for the city it means problem electeds will stay problems for longer – and inevitably there will be gerrymandering. We’re not fans.
This isn’t technically complex. Measure 2-159 would reduce the number of city councilors from nine to six, lengthen terms from two years to four and limit the City’s electeds to three consecutive terms. Oh, it also happens to eliminate a part of the City Charter about the way ward boundaries are determined. That’s a bigger deal than you may think.
So, let’s talk gerrymandering. At present the Benton County Democratic Party is a big tent if said tent is a bifurcated death match between center-left and leftmost flanks. Each is angry and scrambling for advantage. And yes, City Councillorships are ostensibly nonpartisan, but in this environment not really, and this is a one-party town. Intraparty BC Dem brawls impact Council races on the regular, it’s not a stretch to imagine the usual gladiators going full cannibal at the prospect of a boundary redraw. Altruism is not gonna be a thing.
But even if none of THAT were happening, there is inertia and gentrification, and this too will sway the local political psyche, even if unintentionally, as ward lines are sussed. This is how you get the school district’s mistreatment of the northeast corner of town. It’s how affluent homeowner groups pressure the county to scuttle a justice center plan and buy a way more expensive site.
That there would be, if passed, an even number of Councilors with the Mayor breaking tie votes is also concerning. Mayors are elected at-large, and that will not bode well for taxpayers of lesser means as tie votes become more frequent, and likewise swayed by the wards that have the resources to be most vociferous.
Proponents are all gerrymandering… shmerrymandering. They say state law has the whole boundary setting thing on lock. That it’s state’s law that a city can’t have its own law about redrawing ward boundaries. But that’s not true. State law does not preclude cities from having their own boundary setting laws. In this instance, the state law is a minimum and it leaves wiggle room that practically invites abuse.
To all this, the authors of the measure say that ward redistricting will come with a robust public process. Wait, what public process. Right about now your average rank-and-file Corvallisite is forming a mental picture of officials conducting fistfuls of public engagement events and then doing whatever they were going to do anyway. The school closure process and almost unnatural clinging to a civic campus that was pretty much DOA on introduction are recent examples.
It would not have been tough to write a boundary setting process into this Charter amendment. It’s maps, basic math, and some words. Like, start at the most southeast corner of town, blah, blah… A committee of blah… you get the idea.
Moving right along from reading between the lines, the mechanics are troubling. Reducing the number of councilors means reducing the diversity of lived experiences and mindsets that comes with a larger body. It means councilors will be trying to serve even more folks per ward than they do now. So, keeping score, that’s less representation.
The measure would also mean worse representation. Terms would increase from two years to four – and now is when we need to indelicately talk about nonperforming City Councilors.
At present there are three councilors known to be unresponsive to constituents, and two of those are frequently absent from committee and commission assignments, and even business meetings and work sessions. Fortunately, two of them have intuited that all of this will come out if they seek reelection, and they have bowed out. The third, for other reasons, has also bowed out.
None of this is surprising. Being a city councilor is one of the toughest volunteer gigs around. Having to stand for election every two years is a constructive pressure point; it allows individuals to question if they should continue and it permits the public to ask the same question.
Taken at their word, the proponents of this measure seem to be under the impression that passing this Charter amendment will make governing easier, more efficient. We doubt it. This is still a democracy for the moment, and democracy is tough, pretty much no matter what.
What is undemocratic is less representation, nonperforming representation and the gerrymandering this measure makes practically inevitable. We strongly encourage a no vote on Measure 2-159.
We recorded an Advocate Cityspeak debate on Measure 2-159 between Ward 9 Councilor Tony Cadena, who supports the ballot measure, and Ward 7 Councilor Paul Shaffer, who opposes it. The video runs just under 45 minutes, click here to view the video.
To learn about our Editorial Board, click here
Do you have a story for The Advocate? Email editor@corvallisadvocate.com