Compromise was the theme Thursday as the Citizens' Committee on Governmental Structure decided to recommend a nine-member, merged city-county council.
The plan, which passed in a 20-1 vote with three abstentions, provides a middle ground on the most hotly debated issues concerning the proposed city-county merger. It combines attributes of the ways in which the current city council and county commissioners are elected.
The suggested governing board would be composed of four members chosen in partisan, residency ward-based elections. Five others-including the mayor-would be selected in nonpartisan, at-large elections, and the entire council would be reelected every three years.
"We have accomplished something that everybody would have considered a miracle not a long time ago," said committee co-chair Harry Dawley. "If we want to see merger happen, we've got to try to stick behind [this plan]." The recommendation will be forwarded to the Merger Steering Committee-a group composed of city council members and county commissioners that has been studying a merger of Durham's two governments. This committee appointed several groups, including the governmental structure committee, to create a detailed plan for the merger. Other citizens' groups will introduce proposals dealing with other aspects, such as taxation. The Merger Steering Committee will then synthesize last night's plan with those of the other groups, and will likely bring the result to the voters in a referendum next fall.
Since most members of the governmental structure committee favor the idea of a merger, debate has centered on whether elections should be partisan, like the current county commissioner elections or nonpartisan, like the city council races. "The only solution was to mix [partisan and nonpartisan elections] together in a way so that people don't feel like they're losing anything," said committee member Bill Brian, chair of the Friends of Durham political action group.
Brian explained that because the city has a strong Democratic slant, conservatives fear that running as Republicans could cause them to lose votes.
Others, however, argued that partisan elections help to eliminate bias against minorities, because some whites might vote for a black or a Hispanic candidate of the same party over a white of the opposite party. "The issue of partisan elections has always been key to black electoral success," said committee member Lee Mortimer.
The final plan, which was a combination of the ideas of several committee members, created a compromise by making the five at-large positions nonpartisan while the four wards would be partisan. This would preserve about the same partisan-nonpartisan ratio as would exist if the current county commission were combined with the reduced city council. The solution also combines the ward-based and at-large representation strategies of the city and county.
Thursday's debate also focused on whether to schedule elections in the same years as state and national races. "I would much prefer odd-year elections because then you're focusing on nothing else," said Friends of Durham secretary David Smith, explaining that national elections could detract from local issues.
Others, however, argued that even-year elections would put a greater focus on national politics and would increase voter turnout. The plan compromises by allotting three-year terms, so that elections would alternate between even and odd years.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.