Laserfiche WebLink
.386 <br /> <br />opposition to the recommendation, saying that he had never <br />considered Council to be inaccessible or insensitive to community <br />groups or interests. Re felt the ward system might politicize <br />the presently nonpartisan neighborhood associations. Mr. Albro <br />inquired about a referendum on the subject. Mr. Gianniny asked <br />if a referendum should be binding on Council or only advisory in <br />nature. The question of voter turn-.out for such a referendum <br />was discussed. Mr..Albro expressed concern about the declining <br />rates of voter turn-out and wondered hOw accurate the results of <br />a referendum would be in terms of the community's actual feeling <br />about a change in Council structure. Mr. O'Rourke stated that <br />there is a national trend in declining turn-out rates. Mayor Buck <br />rasied the qeustion of whether a ward system would not encourage <br />the possibility of incompetent people being elected to Council <br />through their identification with a narrow parochia issue in a <br />particular ward. Mr. Harris and Mr. Burruss felt that the ward/ <br />at-large system would be no more likely than the present at-large <br />system to produce incompetent people. Mr. Gianniny expressed <br />concern about how elections would be structured; if one election was <br />for the four ward candidates and the following election for the three <br />at-large candidates, the ward election might draw far fewer voters. <br /> <br /> Ms. Gleason wondered if a ward system would discourage minorities <br /> and low-income people from moving to different parts of the City <br /> because they wouldn't wish to lose their voter identification in <br /> a particular ward. Mr, Harris felt that economic and other reasons <br /> were far more influential than a ward system in determining where <br /> people choose to live. He pointed out that Charlottesville has had <br /> ghettoization for years even under the at-large system. Mayor Buck <br /> said he wondered about the necessity for change unless Council <br /> received some clear message that people do feel underrepresented or <br /> badly served; he felt that Council has been awarec~0f community <br /> concerns and that the high degree of political participation in <br /> Charlottesville as well as the effectiveness of the neighborhood <br /> associations ensured that Council is constantly kept aware of <br /> community interests. He qu'estioned the wisdom of making such a <br /> structural change only for theoretical reasons. Ms. Gleason wondered <br /> if the at-large representatives would enjoy more status or influence <br /> than the ward councilors. Mr. Gianniny raised the question of a <br /> possible future annexation or consolidation with the County and <br /> how these might affect the consideration of a structural change in <br /> Council. Council seemed to agree that they wanted to hear from <br /> citizens about the issue of underrepresentation and whether people <br /> really would want such a change in Council. A discussion ensued about <br /> how to inform people of the issue: public hearings, referendums, <br /> neighborhood association and/or regional meetings, ballots in <br /> utility bills, etc. Mr. Conover made the point that those people <br /> that currently feel underrepresented may not be likely to come to <br /> a public hearing or vote in a referendum. Council seemed to agree <br /> <br /> <br />