Thread by @socialistdogmom

would a strong mayor system of government work in charlottesville? would it make a difference? should be an interesting discussion either way!
facebook.com/events/1422291…

like most league of women voters events, everyone here is 60+ and white. folks still filtering in, but i see maybe three other people under 40.

i’d like to see a less roundabout path here.

“cities are creatures of the state” “we often think cities can do more than they can” - panelist speaking on the dillon rule
i’d never heard this phrase until this past year. it is now the bane of my existence. life comes at you fast.

i spy former councilor bob fenwick, former mayor frank buck, and sitting councilor kathy galvin in the crowd.

panelists & facilitatoFdF7

“the mayor is just a spokesperson” elected by the other councilors.
“there’s not one individual who is responsible or accountable” in this system. “accountability is diffuse” (i’d argue that its nearly nonexistent...)
“the city manager is not supposed to be a political entity”

this speaker served one term on council in the 70s. he asks the crowd how many of us were in cville in the early 70s. about half the room raised their hands.

cville’s first african american councilor was elected in 1970. “charles was not a screamer... he was very quiet, very deliberate.” i do hate this coded language. he was a respectable black man, he’s saying. ‘one of the good ones,’ he might as well say.

sitting in an all white crowd in our african american heritage center listening to an old white man telling us about race. cool, cool. we’re really crushing this conversation on race.

oh dig at mike signer’s declaration of cville as “the capital of the resistance” got some chuckles from the crowd. said it didn’t do anything to change our reputation as “the people’s republic of charlottesville”

“if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” says calls for more transparency and accountability are too vague; people need to be clearer about what they want... not sure how much clearer we could be!

former lynchburg councilmember talking about ward system better serving their population — annexation of portions of bedford county “diluted the black vote.” wards ensure black voters get representation.

“local government is mostly housekeeping”
“pot holes don’t have parties”
says strong mayor system is powerful in large cities where the mayor could have clout with state govt, which isn’t the case in lynchburg. unclear on where she stands re: cville.

former richmond councilor jokes that richmond changes its form of government about every two generations. (they switched to strong mayor system about ten years ago)

“strong mayor system of government is one of the most misunderstood terms.” the mayor has hire/fire power, folks have strong loyalty to the mayor.
richmond has strong mayor in 1928, 20 years later switched to council/management system. switched again in the 80s.

says citizens likely had no idea what they were voting for... not a lot of confidence in the people.
tom kaine led the charge for directly elected richmond mayor in the 80s.

richmond’s referendum in the 80s passed locally but was scuttled by general assembly. creatures of the state, indeed.

richmond really has tried a million ways of electing a mayor... used to require mayor to win 5/9 wards. wilder was elected by popular vote in the 2000s, won 80% in all 9 districts.

his qualms with wilder’s firings of city staff don’t really resonate... a city manager could do the exact same thing. doesn’t really work as an argument against a strong mayor. 🤷‍♀️

the tone of most of these panelists is really paternalistic and condescending. citizens just don’t UNDERSTAND. it’s very COMPLICATED. we don’t really know what we’re asking for. “accountability” and “transparency” are just so nebulous. 🙄

first moderator question: what are potential advantages and disadvantages of a ward system? two panelists (richmond & lynchburg) have served in cities with districts/wards.

richmond: advantage of a ward system - “you’ve got a representative who is available to you, it’s someone you know”
“what’s local government about? it’s about basic services for citizens”
downside: “propensity to create mini-mayors,” can make day-to-day governing maddening

lynchburg: combination of ward & at-large has served us well. again cites the guarantee that at least 1 rep on council represents their black community. having both ward & at large reps helps to balance some of the concerns the richmond panelist cited

mr 70s councilor declined to respond. 4th panelist says ward representation has “not in my backyard” issues. “tends to freeze the capacity of the council to act, particularly in development”

“i’d be cautious about the ward system,” he says. thinks it would fragment our council.

moderator: “how do you consider the idea of race within government given the change & expanding of your cities?”

lynchburg: on the annexation of surrounding counties’ land — “we were going after available industrial land. people just cost money”

richmond: “passions were very high back then, the consequences we still live with today.”
“i have a lot of millennial friends who are starting to flex their political might.”
(no you don’t.)

he starts to talk about race but somehow ends up citing high rates of learning disabilities & school suspensions. yikes.

law prof: “issue of race is an issue for the metro area”
“the bigger issue is the city/county” — the city is more diverse than the county. minority & poor minority people are concentrated in cities.
they aren’t really talking about race... they’re talking about land annexation.

audience question about merging the city & county. lynchburg: it would never make it though the statehouse. law prof: not even sure what the rationale is for independent cities.

“there should be regional systems for cooperation” between cities and counties. cites out city/county revenue sharing agreement (which itself arose out of an annexation fight)
sharing services can be done without formally joining.

audience q about getting things through the general assembly & how that might look different if party control shifts in the next election. law prof: might see more leeway for local govts. says he’d like to see home rule, may be possible with different general assembly.

richmond: keep an eye on court decisions about gerrymandering, what’s happening in PA. citizens voted in high numbers in last year’s off-year election.

“there are a lot of rural legislators.” more of them than urban legislators. “very difficult” for urban legislators “to get a fair hearing”
politics is a pendulum, “i do think you’ll see urban areas get a fairer hearing” if party control switches. 🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️

audience q about infrastructure finding. 70s councilor: “i hate to give you bad news, but that’s gonna get a lot worse.” infrastructure relies on local funding, private companies, toll roads. private solutions to public problems 🙄

county resident expounding on the immorality of the city/county revenue sharing agreement. “the city did not EARN $15mil” calls it unjust, immoral law & says the county could’ve savedaf.amU0qx. school & offered better mental health svcs if they kept that money

mr law professor explaining the origins of the rev sharing agreement. city could have & did not annex county land - county collects tax rev on that land. agreement gives some of that $ to the city. “i don’t see this as a moral issue, i see it as a question of distribution.”

the county is generally richer than the city, the county has a lower tax rate, has more social services, “there are lots of spillovers” - residents of both locales use svcs in both.

richmond: historical structures put us in an “us and them” conversation. “economically, we operate in regions”
“when there are needs, a lot of times urban areas are in the best position to provide for them”
anecdote of henrico residents w/“severe issues” being dumped on richmond

this question sounded like a meaningless softball, but lynchburg panelist just said she doesn’t think council should have contact with or direct city staff...

richmond: says it used to be a misdemeanor for council to “direct” staff in any way. it became an art form to communicate with staff indirectly.

no wonder there’s no accountability or transparency. the folks accountable to us aren’t in contact with the folks actually doing the work.

law prof: council members are part time, paid little, often not seeking higher office, “they are public servants in the truest sense” “they are not necessarily professionals”
says “social media-ization” of local govt has decayed civility of public discourse

“generally, city councilors are trying to do their best”
“those conversations need to have some level of respect”
(i promised myself i wouldn’t make a scene and storm out of ANOTHER league of women voters event... this is challenging)

mr 70s: “one thing the heaphy report shows us is there’s plenty of blame to go around” (well that’s for damn sure)
says many involved may not have understood what their roles and responsibilities were.

former mayor frank buck at the mic: was mayor when revenue sharing agreement was adopted... shot a look at the previous question asker. god small town politics is spicy sometimes 🌶

he’s pontificating more than asking a question... but he’s got the crowd’s attention. he just told one of the panelists that he disagreed with “most everything you said.”

SO MANY WHITE HOT BURNS. “i had the benefit, unlike some recently, to serve two years on council before becoming mayor.” both mike & nikuyah were elected mayor in their first terms on council.

airing some weird old grievances i don’t even have context for. the moderator just held up a piece of paper with a big question mark drawn on it...
“do i have a question? by no means do i have a question.”
two volunteers now hovering, desperate to yank the mic from him.

next audience member isn’t really asking a question either... another audience member is breathlessly complaining to the volunteers that these are not questions.

“how much change do you REALLY NEED?” asks an ancient white woman.

“... so my question is, does it make a difference?” thank you, old white lady for asking the question that is literally the entire topic of this event.

law prof answering a question that wasn’t asked... he seems to be of the mind that the real problem is our part-time, nonprofessional elected officials. they work day jobs & do this on the side.

here’s a good question: what’s the process of hiring & firing a city manager?
lynchburg: i don’t know that we’ve ever fired one.

audience q: how are other cities actively engaging neighborhoods? how can city govt support & foster communication?
richmond: unable to speak coherently on community engagement. that’s discouraging.

”in this day and time, we are in real time debate constantly. and it’s changed politics not necessarily for the better.” he seems opposed to increased engagement with constituents, honestly.
“it’s harder now. people get a little lazy” says online conversations aren’t quality.

says he doesn’t actually like wards, but they do increase community engagement, by their nature ensure voices get heard (no wonder he doesn’t like them).

audience q: “are there mechanisms that would make transparency and accountability more measurable?”
mr 70s: city managers get a several day training session, visit all the depts, get briefed on issues. “lot of time spent on drawing lines around who’s responsible for what”

audience member: so what failed? (re: lack of clarity in roles related to A12)
panelist: “i wasn’t in the room.”

law prof: “there is no independent staff that is responsive to the council. the staff is the city manager’s staff”

almost every one of these question askers is just someone’s grandpa who got sidetracked telling you a story you didn’t want to hear. except they’ve been given a microphone and a captive audience.

last audience q: hell yeah jalane!
asking about council salary. says it’s $15k, sitting councilwoman kathy galvin yells “it’s 14!”
this low salary means most folks running are wealthy, keeps others out of office.

richmond: “lets be honest, these are not part time jobs”
“you don’t do it for the money”
jalane: “you can’t eat commitment!”
richmond: “if you up the salary, you’ll see people run for the salary not for the service”
yes but as it stands, only wealthy people can afford to serve!

lynchburg: “if you pay higher salary, are you not in danger of creating professional politicians and we all know how they are thought of”
richmond: councils are worried about blowback of proposing raises

kathy galvin, sitting council member, at the mic: current salary is $14k, general assembly caps it at $18k. council is raising salary to $18k in july.

let me be clear: i don’t give a shit about a raise for folks like signer or galvin. but people like nikuyah often can’t even run because they need to FEED THEIR FAMILIES. folks who aren’t wealthy don’t even have the option of serving in these roles if they want to pay rent, too.

richmond: “it boils down to confidence” (??) says he’s worked with city managers who refuse to cooperate, mock councilors.
richmond city manager can be fired by mayor, not council.
their system is very expensive, staff keeps expanding.

i wasn’t really sure before but the last two hours have made me a goddamn anarchist.

this question asker thinks renaming the position of the mayor “president of the city council” will solve all the problems.
cool, cool, problem solved.

DP reporter chris suarez asking about adding dedicated staff for councilors. this is actually potentially on next year’s budget.
mr law prof says we DONT have any corruption issues, but if we did that would be a relevant concern 🤔

if councilors don’t have faith in city staff, that’s an issue with the city manager relationship. “i don’t know the answer” to whether council should have independent staff. (sounds like richmond does & it’s bloated their bureaucracy significantly)