Note: The Lawrence Times runs opinion columns and letters to the Times written by community members with varying perspectives on local issues. These pieces do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Times staff.
Would you like to send a letter to the Times? Great! Here’s how to do it.
“Why fix what ain’t broke?” Better yet, exactly what problem are we trying to solve with the proposed new form of city governance? Ballot Resolution 7442 would have us directly elect a mayor for a four-year term and change the city commissioner elections from at-large to geographically defined districts.
I’m strongly opposed to this change and encourage others to vote “no.” Now retired, my opposition is based on 28 years of experience working as a county planner for Johnson County, Kansas, as well as eight years working as a planner for Lawrence, where I’ve lived for the past 44 years.
I’ve experienced what happens with a change to a directly elected chairman and with geographically elected commissioners. In 2001, Johnson County voters replaced its process of electing county commissioners who, like Lawrence now, rotated the chairman position. Johnson County now has a similar form of government as proposed by ballot Resolution 7442. Johnson County voters now elect an at-large chairman who serves a four-year term, and commissioners are elected by district to four-year terms.
The county chairman is now essentially in charge of the commission, controlling the agenda, committee appointments, information flow, etc., as well as having more direct contact with the county manager — effectively diluting the power of the other commissioners. The previous collegiality and collaboration among commissioners diminished as power is now concentrated with the chairman.
Related news article:
• What Lawrence’s ballot question on the city’s ‘form of government’ actually means, Oct. 9, 2024
One of the leading proponents of Resolution 7442 said he believes the benefit of having an elected mayor could lead to more public engagement and interest in elections as well as more focused conversations about policy. Having served as the planning director for 14 years under this change of governance, I saw no objective evidence whatsoever of any change in the public’s knowledge or engagement in county affairs or issues.
Do we really want to transfer the current city commission’s power to one person?
Lawrence’s current form of government provides balance so that diverse views are heard, which act as a buffer when those holding the mayor position aren’t strong leaders. We lose that balance when directly electing a mayor to a four-year term.
Creating districts will inevitably result in fractionalism, leading to competition for attention, influence and benefits. District elected commissioners routinely focus more on the parochial interests of their constituents versus representing the community at large. Subsequently, district elected commissioners tend to “horse trade” votes with their colleagues — you vote for my constituent’s request this time and I’ll vote for yours next time.
Related, how will district boundaries be established and by whom? This important process is not even part of the ballot question.
Lawrence has operated well for more than 50-plus years under its current form of government that is particularly well suited to our history, population, and way of conducting fair and particularly open governance. Our voters are equally represented through an open at-large nonpartisan election of all commissioners, elected to be impartial instead of parochial with no one commissioner having more power or influence for more than a year as mayor.
Why fix what ain’t broke, indeed?
— Dean Palos, Lawrence
If this local platform matters to you, please help us keep doing this work.
Don’t miss a beat … Click here to sign up for our email newsletters
Click here to learn more about our newsletters first
More Community Voices:
