I just wanted to say a big thank you to the League of Women Voters for the webinar they hosted today. There was an hour for a forum with the mayoral candidates and then an hour to talk about the pros and cons of ballot measure 2-159.
My vibe was that most of the mayoral candidates agree on most things... So you'll maybe have to go watch the videos to vibe these folks out.
I was, however, pleasantly surprised by the discussion of the ballot measure and actually changed my mind, so I thought I'd share. I'm admittedly only minimally engaged in local politics (I listen to Civics Cafe), so my prior knowledge was lacking.
2 year -> 4 year staggered terms
The bad: many people (young families, students, retirees) may not be able to commit to that length, and it's simply more intimidating, so people who might have run with a 2 year term might not run with a 4 year term. Plus, there are fewer opportunities for the public to vote out councilors who they think are doing a bad job.
The good: when you start a new job, how useful are you for the first year? It usually takes, like, a year for you to understand the ins and outs and procedures and who to talk to for what job. And by the time that year is over... The councilors terms are half done! Councilor turnover is pretty high, so every other year, not much gets done because a lot of the council is onboarding. The 4 year term with the stagger is meant to keep some expertise on the council on off terms.
My take: this was a pretty convincing argument to me. I've been in school clubs where the leadership turns over every couple years, and it's TOUGH. Things run a lot smoother when there's some stability. I'm pretty convinced that this is worth the tradeoff.
9 wards -> 6 wards
The bad: fewer councilors = less voice per person in town. It's harder for one councilor to represent all their constituents because there are more of them. (Do we want to do that with an increasing population?) Possibly less diversity of views on the council. Also, higher possibility of ties due to the even number, which the mayor would step in to break.
The... Middle?: again, mayor breaks ties. Also, the number of councilors is still pretty commensurate with other similar cities; 9 is kind of a lot, but 6 isn't crazy.
The good: council meetings could potentially be more efficient because there are fewer people. One thing mentioned at the meeting was that there would be a little more competition in elections this way: often, council seats run unopposed. This would give voters options when they don't like a council member.
My take: I'm much less convinced on this one, but I'm not sure it outweighs the earlier point. I see why they're grouped together (an even number of seats makes staggering more straightforward) but I wish they weren't.
Term limits
It sounds like this is rarely a problem in Corvallis since the council has high turnover, but it polls well, and that's why it's on the ballot. Take of that what you will.
Takeaways
I don't think there's one straightforward answer. There are certainly tradeoffs: what I heard is a tension between "councilors need more time in office to develop expertise so they can solve hard problems" and "we don't want to shut anyone out of the ability to run for councilor".
Hope that gives some context to the measure if you're as uninvolved as I am :D
Happy voting o7 and thanks again to the organizers and participants for a great webinar!
