In one of the most hotly contested referenda in recent years, Durham citizens voted yesterday to adopt a proposal that will reduce the size of the city council from 13 to seven members.
Although voter turnout was low at 20 percent, by the end of the day 63 percent of voters opted to approve the major structural change to the city's government. The reduction will cut the six at-large seats to three and combine the six existing wards into three.
David Smith-director of Citizens for a Smaller Council, the ad hoc movement dedicated to the reduction-said "the council has been out of touch with the voters, and this is a reaction to that." The vote will result in a more effective and responsive city council, he added.
"It's been a remarkable exercise in grassroots democracy," noted Bill Bryan, chair-elect of Friends of Durham, a conservative political action committee. "Voters knew the status quo wasn't working and wanted a change."
The vote came after Citizens for a Smaller Council collected more than 10,000 signatures on a petition calling for the vote to be placed on the general election ballot. But in a move that cost $50,000 and sparked even more ire from opponents, the City Council decided to hold a special election instead.
That move may have been the death knell for the 13-member council. "Postponing the election was political suicide, especially after the council's conduct for the last six to eight months," said at-large councilman Floyd McKissick.
That conduct includes the city council's vote in June for a 37 percent pay raise, which council members later reduced amid public outcry. Smith cited this, along with squabbling within the council and zoning decisions that took too long, as causes of the voter frustration that led to the movement.
But not all groups were happy with the reduction. The Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People, considered by some to be Durham's most powerful political organization, campaigned vigorously against the proposal and led a voting drive.
"I thought we were moving more progressively," committee chair Lavonia Allison said. "But I don't consider this as a progressive movement at all."
Foes of the reduction say the loss of six contributing members will rob the council of its diversity of opinion. Tom Clark, a representative of the People's Alliance, a group that opposed the measure, said, "A seven-member council will be more vulnerable to big money.... These times call for more faces at the table, not less."
Others who voted against the proposal also feared the reduction would diminish general representation within the body. "It takes more than seven to make a decision," said local citizen Bessie Bishop.
The present 13-member council ties with Fayetteville as the largest governing body in the state. The reduction will make the Durham council one of the smallest.
Diane Felton, a Durham citizen who voted for the reduction, said she believes that at present the council is too large to be efficient. "From my personal experience from working on committees," she said, "I know that the bigger the committee, the harder to put through decisions."
Council member Erick Larson questioned that logic. "One of the arguments was that our meetings were too long and indecisive, but I've heard of some small councils with extra-lengthy meetings."
Others wondered if the reduction would affect government much at all. Marilyn Marley was checking her mail across the street from Precinct 5's voting station while the polls inside remained empty. She said she knew the referendum was being held but that she did not plan on voting. "Either way, I'm still paying my taxes," she said. "Really, what difference does it make?"
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.