The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - 08-04-1993 - VII-A 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. VTl ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 4, 1993 SUBJECT: PROCESS FOR ELECTING ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DEPARTMENT: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X ATTACHMENT(S) : FINAL REPORT INFORMATION CONTACT: MOSES_ CAREY,JR. ' MINORITY REPORT SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS TELEPHONE NUMBER - Hillsborough - 732-8181 Chapel Hill - 968-5401 Durham - 688-7331 Mebane - 227-2031 PURPOSE: To receive a report from the Task Force on the Process for Electing County Commissioners. BACKGROUND: On April 20, 1993, the Orange County Board of Commissioners approved the charge and composition for a task force on the Process for Electing Orange County Commissioners. Since that time, two public hearings and three meetings have been held by the task force. Keith Cook, Chair of the task force will give the report. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Receive the report. la TASK FORCE ON THE PROCESS FOR ELECTING ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CHARGE: 1. To determine if the present process for electing Commissioners provides fair and equitable representation for the citizens of Orange County. 2 . If the answer to #1 is no, then what changes are necessary to achieve fair and equitable representation? 3 . To report to the Orange County Board of Commissioners no later than June 30, 1993 on the subject of the charge. TASK FORCE COMPOSITION: 1. one member of the Northern Orange County NAACP • 2 . one member of the Southern Orange County NAACP 3 . one member of the Orange County Commission For Women- 4 . one member of the local chapter of the National Organization For Women 5. one member of the Orange County Democratic Party recommended by the chair person 6 . one member of the Orange County Republican Party recommended by the chair person 7 g at-large member All members will be appointed by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. , must be registered to vote in Orange County. Staff upport will be provided by the County Manager's office. PROCESS: 1. The Task Force would be expected to hold two public hearings in geographical convenient Orange County locations to receive public comments on issues of fair and equitable representation. 2 . The Task Force may consult with the staff of the Institute of Government for legal advice on election laws in the state and the U. S. 3 . The Task Force will produce a written report of their findings for presentation to the BOCC by June 30, 1993 . Board : Task Force on Electina BOO.: AS OF '.26 JUL 93 lb Number : C • Term: Meeting: Function: John Link ext . 2300 Description: NAME/ADDRESS DAY-PHONE TERM EXPIRES RACE TOWNSHIP EVN-PHON • APPOINTED SEX REPRESENTATION D3. 1 Linda Carver 732-6138 W Chapel Hill 1315 Blackwood Mtn. Road 929-3950 05/18/93 F Comm . for Women • Chapel Hill , NC 27516 D3.2 Keith Cook 782-0033 B Cedar Grove 419 Calvary Court 644-1884 05/18/93 M Dem. Party Hillsborough , NC 27278 03.3 Rachel Lynch-Gaya 732-6454 B Hillsborouan Route 6 . Box 1.060 732-3289 05/18/93 F N . O. NAACP Orange Grove Road -- Hillsborough. NC 27278. D3.4 Richard Hammer 732-8366 W Hillsborouah 111 West Corbin Street 732-8366 05/18/93 M Rep . Party Hillsborough, NC 27278 • D3 ,5 Patrick Mulkey 660-2542 W Bingham 3812 Highway 54 West 942-3814 05/18/93 M At-large Chapel Hill ; NC 27516- D3 .6 Gloria Williams 929-0494 B Chapel Hill 436 Piney Mountain Road 929-3534 05/18/93 F S.O. NAACP Chapel Hill . NC 27514 . D3 . 7 Sharon. Worthington 929-4000 W Chapel Hill 200 Barnes St. #0-6 . 942-3791 06/07/93 F N .O.W. Carrboro, NC 27510 D3 . 8 Robert 0. Ferguson 682-3710 W Hillsborouah 1505 Hwy . 86 N 732-1988 06/07/93 M At-Large Hillsborough. NC 27278 - 03 . 9 VACANT • At-Large Chapel Hill . NC 27514 2 , TASK FORCE ON THE PROCESS FOR ELECTING COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IN ORANGE COUNTY FINAL REPORT AUGUST 4, 1993 Committee Members Keith Cook, Chair, Orange County Democratic Party Linda Carver, Orange County Commission for Women Robert Ferguson, At-large Rachel Lynch-Gaya, Northern Orange NAACP Richard Hammer, Hillsborough Republican Party Patrick Mulkey, At-large Gloria Williams, Southern Orange NAACP Sharon Worthington, National Organization for Women Staff John M. Link, Jr., County Manager Kathy Baker, Deputy Clerk to the Board 3 BACKGROUND In response to citizen questions regarding the fairness of the current process used to elect Orange County Board of Commissioners, the Board held a public information meeting on September 28, 1992. Joseph S. Ferrell from the Institute of Government, UNC-CH, presented information on the general laws of North Carolina governing local elections; and three possible routes for seeking a change in the structure of the Orange County Board of Commissioners. Since that time, some citizens have continued to express an interest in studying the present election process for Orange County Commissioners. On April 20, 1993,the Board of Commissioners unanimously approved appointing a nine(9) member task force to study the process for electing County Commissioners. Members of the Task Force were selected in order to achieve the following representation. 1. One member of the Northern Orange County NAACP 2. One member of the Southern Orange County NAACP. 3. One member of the Orange County Commission for Women 4. One member of the local chapter of the National Organization for Women 5. One member of the Orange County Democratic Party recommended by the Party chairperson 6. One member of the Orange County Republican Party recommended by the Party chairperson 7. Three At-Large Members The only criteria for membership was all appointees had to be registered to vote in Orange County. All Task Force members were appointed by the Board of Commissioners. CHARGE The specific charge to the task force was: 1. To determine if the present process for electing Commissioners provides fair and equitable representation for the citizens of Orange County. 2. If the Task Force determines that the present system is in some way unfair, then, In what way is it unfair and to whom is it unfair? (This charge was added at the organization meeting of the Task Force held on June 2, 1993 by Commissioner Chair Moses Carey, Jr..) 3. If the process does not provide for fair representation, then what changes are necessary to achieve fair and equitable representation? 1 1 4. To report to the Orange County Board of Commissioners no later than June 30, 1993 on the subject of the charge. PROCESS The Task Force was instructed to, at a minimum, hold two public hearings in geographically convenient locations in the County to receive public comments on issues of fair and equitable representation. The public hearings were held June 16, 1993 at 7:00 pm at Guy B. Phillips Middle School in Chapel Hill and June 17, 1993 at 7:00 pm in the Superior Courtroom in Hillsborough. The hearings were attended by a total of thirty-five (35), ten (10) of whom were present at both hearings. In addition, the Task Force held meetings on June 2, 30, and July 8, 1993. The group also consulted with Joseph Ferrell of the Institute of Government and Lee Mortimer of the Center for Voting and Democracy. An informal survey was conducted at Hillsborough Hog Day Festival on June 19, 1993 and on Saturday, June 26, 1993 at the Carrboro Farmers Market. A copy of the survey instrument and the results are included as Attachment L CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS CHARGE: DETERMINE WHETHER THE PRESENT PROCESS FOR ELECTING COMMISSIONERS PROVIDES FAIR AND EQUITABLE REPRESENTATION FOR THE CITIZENS OF ORANGE COUNTY. Response: The Task Force has determined that the current election system in Orange County does not provide for fair and equitable representation for all citizens in the county. This conclusion was reached by a five (5) to three (3) vote. This conclusion was based on the responses from the informal surveys; the comments received at the public hearings; and discussions among task force members. Concerns raised by those opposed to the current election system included: 1. Lack of rural representation on the Board of County Commissioners; 2. Present board is composed of only Chapel Hill township residents; 3. Rural and conservative residents feel alienated and disenfranchised. 4. Political parties excluding Democrats are frustrated by the perceived inability to participate on local elected bodies. A total of 171 Orange County citizens spoke at the public hearings and/or completed the surveys regarding this issue. Of these, 153 considered the present system unfair and/or unequitable, while 18 supported the current election system. It should be noted that as of January 8, 1993, there were 60,560 registered voters in Orange County. Thus, the 2 5 perceptions/opinions of 171 citizens regarding this issue represent less than one (1) percent of the voting population of Orange County. CHARGE: IF THE TASK FORCE DETERMINES THAT THE PRESENT SYSTEM IS IN SOME WAY UNFAIR, THEN IN WHAT WAY IS IT UNFAIR AND TO WHOM IS IT UNFAIR? Response: Although the Task Force determined that the current election system is not fair and equitable for all citizens in Orange County, it could not totally pinpoint those citizens for whom the system is unfair. The questions and issues that were raised and discussed included the following: 1. Is the issue of fairness based on reality or is it one of perception? 2. Are the concerns geographical or are they philosophical? 3. Is the current system unfair to Democratics, Republicans, Independents, rural residents and/or farmers. 4. Is the system unfair to African-Americans and women? 5. Is it fair that Chapel Hill Township voters can determine the destiny of the county without any consideration of the needs and concerns of the remaining parts of the county (i.e. the recent school bond referendum)? These serious questions and issues were difficult for the Task Force to address and resolve as noted by the five (5) to three (3) vote. Some members of the Task Force felt that the current system is unfair and other members felt that it is fair. (See Attachment II -Minority Report). However, it is a moot point to continue to ponder whether or not it is a perception or a reality that the current system is unfair to some of the citizens of Orange County. The fact is that many citizens do perceive it to be unfair, as reflected by the majority of citizens who participated in the public hearings and the informal surveys. It is also a fact that many citizens do feel alienated and frustrated by their perceptions that the current system is not responsive to their needs and concerns. Recommendation: The Task Force recommends that the following points be considered immediately by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. 1. The Board has a responsibility to reach out to all citizens, not just those who have the power to determine election results. The Task Force recommends that the current Board implement various strategies to insure input in policy decisions from rural citizens and communities in the County. 3 6 2. The continuing gap between the Chapel Hill Township and the rest of the County seems to be-widening. The Task Force recommends that the Board study and implement ways to bridge this "us vs. them" mentality for the benefit of all our citizens. CHARGE: WHAT CHANGES ARE NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE FAIR AND EQUITABLE REPRESENTATION? Response: According to Joseph Ferrell of the Institute of Government, the present system of electing county commissioners is legal and therefore not in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as amended. Further, the general laws of North Carolina do not prescribe any the number of members, term of office, or method of electing boards of county commissioners. The structure of the Orange County Board of Commissioners is prescribed by Chapter 439 of the Session Laws of 1953. No changes in the structure of the board have been made since 1953. Ferrell also stated that if a new system is created, it will need to follow the law and the one-person, one-vote rule. Recommendation: Based on this information and the group discussion of all the issues, the following recommendations were made if the current system is changed. 1. The Orange County Board of Commissioners should be expanded from five to seven members. According to Joseph Ferrell of the Institute of Government, this can be accomplished by one of the following methods. a. The County can petition its legislative delegation for introduction and • passage of a local bill embodying a specific plan requested by the board. The Orange County delegation's practice is to require that any such legislation have the unanimous support of the delegation. b. The County Home Rule Act can be changed by using the following procedure: i. The Board of County Commissioners adopts a resolution modifying the structure of the board within the parameters allowed by the Act. ii. The resolution is submitted to a vote of the people at either a special election or at the same time as an already scheduled election. iii. If approved by the voters, the new plan takes effect for the next primary and general election cycle. 4 • 7 • 2. The election method should be changed to either combination of district/at-large system or cumulative voting which is a proportional election method. a. District/At-large System - If the size of the Board of Commissioners is increased to seven members, under this system, the Board would be elected at large, however, the county would be divided into five residential districts. Five candidates must meet residence requirements. The remaining two members would be elected at large with no residence requirement. An illustration of possible County residential districts is included as Attachment III. This system would require candidates to be nominated within the district with voting to take place in the district in the primary election and the primary winners would be placed on the ballot for the general election. All County residents would be eligible to vote for the district winners as well as the at-large candidates. This system can be adopted by a majority vote of the Board of Commissioners. b. Proportional Election Method -Cumulative voting: Under this system,voters would be allowed to cast as many votes as there were open seats on the board. For example, if the present Orange County Board of Commissioners was elected by cumulative voting, each voter would get five votes that he or she could cast among the candidates in any fashion. One vote could be cast for each of the candidates, or five votes for one candidate or any other possible combination. In order to utilize this system, Orange County must petition its legislative delegation for introduction and passage of a local bill seeking permission to adopt this system. 5 8 SUMMARY - The Task Force on the Process for Electing County Commissioners has attempted to address the charge as instructed by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. Specific recommendations are presented in this report regarding how the current system can be changed or improved to address recurring issues of fairness. It is important for this issue to be dealt with in some manner, now, in order for us as a community to move on to other important issues facing the County. Hopefully, this report and the additional information provided in the Appendix to this report will enable the present Board to bring some resolution to this issue. This Task Force stands ready to assist the Board of Commissioners should the Board decide to implement any recommendation contained in this report. Respectfully Submitted: ith Cook, Chair Task Force on the Process for Electing County Commissioners in Orange County 6 9 ATTACHMENT I THIS SURVEY IS BEING CONDUCTED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE TASK FORCE ON THE PROCESS FOR ELECTING ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1. Are you a citizen of Orange County? Yes No 2. Address: *TOWNSHIP 3. Does the current system provide the opportunity for fair and equitable representation? YES NO (if you answered "no" please answer question #4 below) 4. If Not, to whom is the system unfair? ***************** 10 MINORITY REPORT TASK FORCE ON THE PROCESS FOR ELECTING COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA The Task Force on The Process For Electing County Commissioners (Orange County, N.C. ) met on June 30, 1993. During this meeting a five (5) to three (3) vote was registered stating that the current system was not fair and equitable to all Orange County citizens. The three (3) dissenting voters have chosen to file a minority report in opposition to this registered opinion. The following factors are cited: o Two public hearings were held: June 16 and 17, 1993, with a combined total turn-out of thirty- five persons. Of those thirty-five (35) , ten (10) attendees were present at both the June 16th and 17th meetings. In addition to the Public Hearings, surveys were conducted at "HOG DAY" and at the FARMERS MARKET. The two public hearings plus the surveys provided a total of 161 responses stating that the current process for electing county commissioners is unfair. However, as of January 8, 1993, there are 60,560 registered voters in Orange County. It is our considered opinion that 161 responses in no way justify and support the opinion that the current system to elect county commissioners is unfair. The ratio of responses to the total voting population is miniscule, and because the 161 responses did not represent a controlled random sampling of the Orange County voting population, no accurate or supportive conclusions can be drawn. o There is no evidence that there were sufficient African-Americans who voiced opposition to the current system to elect Orange County Commissioners. o The Voting Rights Act as established does not provide for redress or corrective measures based on perceived discrimination or unfairness in a situation of rural versus urban population. l0a Minority Report Page Two (2) o The 1992 Edition, FORMS OF GOVERNMENT OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTIES, compiled by Joseph S. Ferrell staff member, Institute of Government, UNC-Chapel Hill, clearly reveals that sixty-one (61) , of North Carolina's one hundred ( 100) counties, use the election process currently in Orange County to elect county commissioners. Mr. Ferrell, stated in his presentation to the Task Force that the current system to elect County Commissioners used in Orange. County is legal and does not fall under any category that would be in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Fairness is simply a political judgement. In the final analysis, endorsers of the "Minority Report" , believe that a recommendation has been made on perception and not on conclusive and supportive data and community responses provided to the Task Force on the Process For Electing County Commissioners. Therefore, it is requested that this report become a part of the official documents and recommendations to be submitted to the Orange County Board of Commissioners. .►R 1 . S G ATURE DATE 7;77' ; IGNATURS e' J DATE S AZ7ifiL,J IGNATURS DATE L.. ATTACHMENT 3 ORANGE COUNTY VOTER INFORMATION Total Voters - 60;560 as of January 8,1993 Total Precincts - 39 Average precinct size - 1,553 % of voters who are minority 13.5% % of voters who are female 54.9%, males 45.1% 5 District average - 12,112 SAMPLE DISTRICTS Dist. 1 - Orange Grove, White Cross, St. John, Dogwood Acres, Hillsborough, Cheeks, Efland, and West Hillsborough. total = 12,039; female = 54.8%; male = 45.2%; minority = 19.7% Dist. 2 - Carr, Cedar Grove, Tolars, Caldwell, St. Marys, Cameron Park, Coles Store, Grady Brown,Eno, and Patterson. total = 12,455; female = 53.7%; male = 46.3%; minority = 12.4% Dist. 3 - North Carrboro, Lions Club, Town Hall, OWASA, Westwood, Lincoln, and Northside. total = 12,083; female = 54%; male = 46%; minority = .16% Dist. 4 - Mason Farm, King Mill, Country Club, Glenwood, Greenwood, Ridgefield, and East Franklin. total = 11,967; female = 56.1%; male = 43.9%; minority = 12.2% Dist. 5 - Battle Park, Coker Hills, Estes Hills, Weaver Dairy, Eastside, Colonial Heights, and Booker Creek. total = 12,026; female = 55.8%; male = 44.2%; minority = 7.2% Submitted by, Patrick Mulkey 3812 Hwy. 54W Chapel Hi11,N.C. 942-3814 32 APPENDIX ! Institute of Government The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 238 Knapp Building CB #3330 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-3330 Memo From Joseph S. Ferrell (919)966-4213 voice (919)962-2706 fax To: Task Force on Electing Board of Commissioners Date: June 29, 1992 06:04 PM Subject: Status of counties of comparable population The following tabulation shows the form of government of North Carolina counties with a population within 10%, plus or minus, of Orange County's County Population No. Members Election Method Terms Cabarrus 98,935 5 At Large 4S Cleveland 84,714 5 At Large 4S Iredell 92,931 5 At Large 2/4S Orange 93,851 5 At Large 4S Rockingham 86,064 5 At Large 4S Union 84,211 5 At Large 4S AYrhilL L c __ *copied from* Form of Government of NC Summary Counties Compiled by: Chief Administrative Officer .. Joe Ferrell Every county employs a manager or administrator except for the three following counties, where the elected chair is the county administrator: Haywood Jackson Madison Number of Members Eight boards have three members: . Alleghany Clay Jackson Swain Cherokee Graham Madison Yancey . Sixty-one boards have five members: Alamance Davidson Macon Rutherford Alexander Davie Martin Sampson • Ashe Durham McDowell Stanly Avery Edgecombe Mitchell Stokes Bertie Franklin Montgomery Surry Brunswick Gates Moore Transylvania Buncombe Greene New Hanover Tyrrell Burke Harnett Northampton Union Cabarrus Haywood Onslow Warren Caldwell Henderson Orange Washington: Camden Hertford Pender Watauga Carteret Hoke Person Wilkes Catawba Hyde Polk Yadkin Chatham Iredell Randolph Cleveland Jones Rockingham . Currituck Lincoln Rowan Forty-five boards are elected at large: Alamance Davidson Madison Stanly Alexander Davie McDowell Stokes Alleghany Durham. Mitchell Swain Ashe Edgecombe New Hanover Transylvania Avery Graham Onslow Tyrrell Buncombe Greene Orange Union Burke Haywood Perquimans Wilkes Cabarrus Hoke Person Yadkin Caldwell Iredell Polk Yancey Catawba Jackson Richmond Clay Jones Rockingham Cleveland Lincoln Rowan Twenty-two boards are elected at large, but the counties are divided into districts and two or more candidates must meet district residence requirements: - Bertie Gaston Macon Surry Brunswick Gates Moore Wake Chatham Henderson Northampton Warren Cherokee Hertford Pender Watauga APPENDIX 3 1 • Fair} re s fink rl £ j g s„„,, Little River Over the post 25 years, G t pel'£Hi 11 township has had a omwehcat Ipr er '� Cedar i township percentage of votersfthar}�fi . township 86 f, representatives.on the Orange z township 0 ; ::n Goun#y Board of,Gorm)ssfsnxrs,; is S#ill, resrden#s of the cc��nty's rural Mebane Cheeks `Eno township's quesfion whether. he o township t wnsh�p cyst m rs fair ..._. T. ,o -.:z oroug ��; � Hillsb h ,...,:-,;,,,,,,5-....:•:;„::-..,-.-,,....:::::::::•.,_i x /o afv�oters k colmn stoners Tow rp is•of)993 seated sine(1968 t `5l Chapel Hill 72 4 63 1 ` Hillsborough '` Chapel Hillsborough 8 . .. 9 2 township Hill Bingham 4 9 Gheks 0 0 ._ - ` wn ao ship 3 Eno 4 4 9 2 aro ��QM CedQrL(7Ve } : Little River 2 2 12 3 towns.: p (Chapel Bi atn '< �, hi �c 15f s l Hill Growing influence In recent'years, residents of Chi el Hill township hove dom nated the Orange County ...., Board of Commissioners C rrently, all five commissioners are from Chapel Hill a ; .. 364 r 1966 , g� { ` f ,, 1968 1970 ,1972 1914 1916 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992< 1994 :: .1996 Henry Henry Norm Norm Ben Stephen :Stephen t i Walker Walker Gustaveson • Gustaveson : Lloyd Halkiotis Halkiotis t Eno Eno Chapel Hill Chapel Hill, Cheeks • Chapel Hill CChapel Hill s Harvey Richard Richard Richard Moses Moses, u ;Mosel Bennett Whiffed Whined Whined Carey Carey Carey.. n . Lapel Hill Hillsborough Hillsborough Hillsborough th'apel Hill :Chapel'Hill ,'Chapel.Hill : Ira Ira tan Annex Shirley Shirley Verla " Ward .Ward • Pinney . Barnes . Marshall. Marshall . . I k Chapel Hill Chapel Hill Chapel Hill Chapel Hill Chapel Hill Ch"apel Hill. ';Chapel Hill } Williams �. :":!:.:::.tic%!-:.:::!.:11.7-:::: ,, Don Don Don r Dan i Ray parr Willhoit WI on ' Willhoit Willhoit Willhoit Cedar Grove =Cbape1 H P a k X.�ksx.,,X. a ...,.x.,_. Cho el H,II Chopef.Hill ChapeLHdl ChapelHill. ;Chdpl Hill '_ Carl Norman Norman Norman Norman John Alice Smith Walker Walker Walker Walker Hartwell Gordon. i, Chapel Hill little River Little River Little River Little River Eno 1 I is : f i 1 t r.7x- .t Chapel Hill :. m Me)vi nWhilfteld of Chapel Hill served.from.Ss un ,g3 to Nov. 1974 `N { Garrett moved from Chapel Hill to Eno during her term of APPENDIX 4 15 111 West Corbin St. Hillsborough, NC 27278 June 21, 1993 TO: Other Members of the Task Force on the Process for Electing Orange County Commissioners FROM: Rich Hammer SUBJECT: May 1990 voting data which shows a sharp division within Orange County, between city and rural parts In the spring of 1990 I got active in County politics, attempting to speak on behalf of rural property owners who dislike controls imposed by County government. After running in the Republican primary that May, I studied the votes and compared the trends in the two parts of the county. The contrast between the two parts can be seen most clearly in the votes cast in the Democratic primary, in which there were eight active candidates running for three seats. Attached you will find a copy of a column which I wrote at that time, and (should you be interested) a spreadsheet of the data. Also, in the table below I summarize the data in that vote. Clearly the people in the rural precincts would have elected other candidate, had they had the chance. City City Rural Rural vote place vote place finish finish Chapel Hill Candidates who won Gordon 4030 2 1006 8 Halkiotis 3681 3 1854 3 Insko 4515 1 1189 7 Rural candidates supported by landowners associations Carroll 1055 5 2220 2 Lloyd 1128 4 2898 1 Tripp 425 8 1208 6 Other candidates (rural ) Gatewood 671 7 1334 5 Walters 802 6 1388 4 APPENDIX 5 16 %ys MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Alice Gordon DATE: June 24 , 1992 • RE: County Commissioners and Their Township Residence • At my request, Sylvia Clements of the Clerk's office has completed a listing of the members of the Board of County Commissioners for the 38 year period from 1954 to the present, along with their township residence. That listing is attached for your information. The cutoff date of 1954 was chosen because that was the first year that there were five commissioners on the Board. Prior to that date the Board had three members. Furthermore, the township residence of commissioners prior to 1954 was apparently not available for all commissioners . I thought this information might be of interest because of many recent questions concerning the number of commissioners who have resided in Chapel Hill Township. Note that the first year that all five commissioners resided in Chapel Hill Township was 1990. Coincidentally that was the first year that two women had ever served on the Board at the same time. Over the past 38 years, there have been .18 years during which 3 commissioners have resided in Chapel Hill Township. There have been 10 years during which there were two Chapel Hill Township Commissioners. Finally, there have been 4 years when there have been four Chapel Hill Township Commissioners and another four years when only one commissioner has resided in Chapel Hill Township. The current population in Chapel Hill Township is just under 70% of the total population of Orange County. c IT ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PER ELECTED PERIOD Year Township 1990- 92 Stephen Halkiotis (Reelected) CH: 5 Alice -Gordon, Verla Insko (Elected Moses Carey, Don Willhoit 1988-90 Moses Carey, Don Willhoit (Reelected) CH: 4 Shirley Marshall, John Hartwell, Stephen Halkiotis E: 1 1986-88 Shirley Marshall (Reelected) CH: 4 John Hartwell, Stephen Halkiotis (Elected) E: 1 Moses Carey, Don Willhoit 1984-86 Don Willhoit (Reelected) C: 1 Moses Carey (Elected) CH: 3 Shirley Marshall, Ben Lloyd, Norman Walker LR: 1 1982-84 Norman Walker (Reelected) C: 1 Shirley Marshall, Ben Lloyd (Elected) CH: 2 Richard Whitted, Don Willhoit H: 1 LR: 1 1980-82 Richard Whitted, Don Willhoit (Reelected) CH: 3 Anne Barnes (served through Dec. 1981) H: 1 Shirley Marshall appointed Jan. ' 82) LR: 1 Norm Gustaveson, Norman Walker 1978-80 Norm Gustaveson, Norman Walker (Reelected) CH: 3 Anne Barnes (Elected) H: 1 Richard Whitted, Don Willhoit LR: 1 1976-78 Richard Whitted (Reelected) CH: 3 Don Willhoit (Elected) H: 1 Norm Gustaveson, Jan Pinney, Norman Walker LR: 1 1974-76 Norman Walker (Reelected) CH: 2 Norm Gustaveson, Jan Pinney (Elected) E: 1 Flora Garrett, Richard Whitted H: 1 LR: 1 1972-74 Flora Garrett, Richard Whitted (Elected) CH: 2 Henry S. Walker, Norman Walker E: 1 Ira Ward (Served until Sept. 1973) H: 1 (Melvin Whitfield served 9/73 - 11/74) LR: 1 1970-72 Henry S. Walker, Ira Ward (Reelected) CG: 1 Norman Walker (Elected) CH: 2 Harvey Bennett, William C. Ray E: 1 LR: 1 Township Legend: B = Bingham, C = Cheeks, CG = Cedar Grove, CH = Chapel Hill , E = Eno, H = Hillsborough, LR = Little River 18 Year Township 1968-70 Harvey Bennett, William C. Ray (Reelected) CG: 1 Carl Smith, Henry S . Walker, Ira Ward CH: 3 E: 1 1966-68 Carl Smith, Henry S . Walker (Reelected) CG: 1 Ira Ward (Elected) CH: 3 Harvey D. Bennett, William C. Ray E: 1 1964-66 Harvey D. Bennett (Reelected) CG: 1 William C. Ray (Elected) CH: 3 Gordon Cleveland, Carl Smith, Henry S . Walker E: 1 1962-64 Gordon Cleveland, Carl Smith (Elected) B: 1 Henry S . Walker (Nominated to serve in place of CH: 3 Donald McDade who was elected ,for 4-year term, E: 1 but died on November 21, 1962) Harvey D. Bennett, Donald Stanford 1960-62 Donald Stanford (Reelected) B: 1 Harvey D. Bennett (Elected) CG: 1 Clarence Jones, Donald McDade, Henry S . Walker CH: 1 E: 1 H: 1 1958-60 Henry S . Walker B: 1 Clarence Jones, Donald McDade CG: 1 Donald Stanford, R.J.M. Hobbs CH: 1 E: 1 H: 1 1956-58 R.J.M. Hobbs (Reelected) B: 1 Donald Stanford (Elected) CG: 1 Claud T. Pope (Died 8/57 , replaced by Donald McDade) CH: 2 Dwight M. Ray, Henry S . Walker E: 1 1954-56 Four-year terms: Henry Walker C: 1 D. M. Ray CH: 3 Edwin S . Lanier (Resigned 11/2/56) . E: 1 Two-year terms: R.J.M. Hobbs Sim L. Efland (Resigned 12/3/56) Note: At the February 2 , 1953 meeting, a group of citizens petitioned that the size of the Board of Commissioners be increased from three to five members. The Board agreed and recommended that enabling legislation be requested. It was decided that at the November, 1954 election three candidates would be elected for four-year terms and two would be elected for two-year terms and that in the future all candidates would be elected to serve four- year terms. 19 (6/92) COMMISSIONERS ' TOWNSHIP RESIDENCE** • NAME TOWNSHIP Moses Carey CH Alice Gordon CH Stephen Halkiotis CH Verla Insko CH Don Wilihoit CH Shirley Marshall CH John Hartwell Eno Ben Lloyd Cheeks Norman Walker Little River Richard Whitted Hillsborough Anne Barnes CH Norman Gustaveson CH Jan Pinney CH Flora Garrett CH (Elected) Eno (Moved to) Henry S . Walker Eno Ira Ward CH Harvey Bennett CH William C. Ray Cedar Grove Carl Smith CH Gordon Cleveland CH Donald Stanford Bingham Clarence Jones Hillsborough Donald McDade Cedar Grove Claud Pope Cedar Grove R.J.M. Hobbs Chapel Hill Dwight M. Ray Chapel Hill Edwin S . Lanier Chapel Hill Sim L. Efland Cheeks ** This listing goes back to 1954 . APPENDIX 6 20 ORANGE COUNTY, NC POPULATION DATA - BY TOWNSHIP (1990 CENSUS) TOWNSHIP POPULATION .' •HOUSE- %AFRICAN:.,. .:% ASIAN.:'• POP :>• POP<'.s;: •(1990) ° :HOLDS ' ; AMERICAN AMERICAN..• : AGE 65`". AGE LITTLE RIVER 2,183 777 11.0% 0.2% 156 580 (% of total) (2.33%) 2.15% 1.92% 3.27% CEDAR GROVE 3,691 1,345 34.2% 0.1% 460 868 (3.93%) 3.73% 5.65% 4.89% CHEEKS 5,422 2,036 23.1% 0.2% 564 1,346 (5.77%) 5 .64% 6.93% 7.58% HILLSBOROUGH 10, 136 3;811 27.7% 0.4% 1, 171 2,572 (10.8%) 10.56% 14.39% 14.49% ENO 5,262 2, 037 8.3% 0.4% 472 1,286 (5.61%) 5.64% 5.80% 7.25% BINGHAM 5,184 2, 156 10.18 0.4% , 407 1,122 (5.52%) 5.97% 5.0% 6.32%. CHAPEL HILL 61,973 23,942 13.5% 3.6% 4,906 9,973 (66.03%) 66.31% _ 60.3% 56.20% COUNTY TOTAL 93,851 36,104 15.9% 2.5% 8,136• 17,747 . . • (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) This table provides a snapshot about Orange County by township. Each of the seven townships are portrayed with data from the 1990 Census. The categories have been selected because they illustrate data of common interest or significant change. POPULATION: This column shows the 1990 Census population of the township. The percentage shown represents the township's proportion of the total county population, i.e. , Little River contains 2.33% of the total County population. HOUSEHOLDS: This column lists the number of households in the township, with the percentage of total County households located within the Township. Persons of European-American descent constitute four-fifths (80.8%) of the county's population. The next two columns illustrate the proportion of the County's two largest racial minorities, African-Americans and Asian-Americans. % AFRICAN-AMERICAN: African-Americans constitute the largest minority population in the County. This column expresses the percentage of the Township total population which is African-American. % ASIAN-AMERICAN: Asian-Americans are the County's fastest-growing racial minority. This column illustrates the percentage of Township residents who are Asian-American. This category includes Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Asian Indian, Korean, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Hmong, Laotian, Thai and other. within the County are two age-related categories of special interest. These are persons 65 years or more, and persons less than 18 years. % GREATER THAN 65 YEARS: This column shows the number of persons in each township that are 65 years of age or more. Thepercentage shown reflects the Township's proportion of the total County 65+ population. For example, 5.65% of the all persons in Orange county age 65 years or more live in Cedar Grove Township. % LESS THAN 18 YEARS: This column represents the number of persons in each township below the age of 18 years. The percentage shown reflects the Township's proportion of the total County population less than age 18. For example, 6.32% of all persons less than 18 years in the County live in Bingham Township. 21 APPENDIX 7 METHODS FOR ESTABLISHING AND ALTERING THE STRUCTURE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. The general laws of North Carolina do not prescribe any one set plan for the number of members, term of office, or method of electing boards of county commissioners. The structure of each of the 100 boards of county commissioners is determined from one or a combination of the following authoritative sources: (1) the provisions of G.S. 153-4 (a former statute repealed in 1973);(2) one or more local acts of the General Assembly; (3) a local redistricting plan adopted under G.S. 153-5.2 (a former statute also repealed in 1973), (4) a plan adopted locally under the Home Rule Act, or (5) a judgment of the federal court entered pursuant to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The structure of the Orange County Board of Commissioners is prescribed by Chapter 439 of the Session Laws of 1953. No changes in the structure of the board have been made since 1951 • There.are currently three possible routes for seeking a change in the structure of the Orange County Board of Commissioners. 1.. Local act of the General Assembly. The normal procedure for change by this method is for the board of commissioners of the affected county to petition its legislative delegation for introduction and passage of a local bill embodying a specific plan requested by the board. The Orange County delegation's practice is to require that any such legislation have the unanimous support of the delegation.. 2. Home Rule Act (G.S. 153A-58 through"153A-64). The procedure for change under the county Home Rule Act is as follows: • A. The board of county commissioners adopts a resolution modifying the structure of the board within the parameters allowed by the Act. B. The resolution is submitted to a vote of the people at either a special election'or at the same time as an already scheduled election. • C. If approved by'the voters, the new plan takes effect for the next primary and general election cycle. 3. Litigation Under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This route for change could be successful if a litigant were able to show that the existing structure of the board has the effect of minimizing minority voting strength. Presentation to the Orange County Board of Commissioners, September 28, 1992 Joseph S. Ferrell Institute of Government ORAL REPORT Task Force on the Process for Electing County Commissioners Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board. I am Keith Cook, Chair of the Task Force on the Process for Electing County Commissioners. I am here to give the final report of the Task Force, and to answer your questions . Before I begin, let me introduce members of the Task Force who are present. (Introduce Task Force Members) The Task Force had a specific charge from this Board: 1. To determine if the present process for electing Commissioners provides fair and equitable representation for the citizens of Orange County. 2 . If the Task Force determines that the present system is in some way unfair, then, in what way is it unfair and to whom is it unfair? 3 . If the process does not provide for fair representation, then what changes are necessary to achieve fair and equitable representation? In order to address the charge, members of the Task Force held 2 public hearings, had 3 regular meetings, consulted with Joe Ferrell from the Institute of Government and Lee Mortimer from the Center for Voting and Democracy. - Two informal surveys were also conducted. 171 citizens spoke at the public hearing and/or completed the surveys. As to the first charge, the task force found, after much debate, that the current system for electing commissioners does not provide for fair representation for all citizens in the County. This conclusion was reached by a 5 to 3 vote. I have asked a member of the task force to discuss later the minority view point. Some of the concerns raised by those opposed to the current system were: 1. Lack of rural representation on the Board of County Commissioners. 2. Present Board is made up of Chapel Hill Township residents. 3 . Rural and conservative residents feel alienated and disenfranchised. On the 2nd charge, in what Wises way is the present system unfair and to whom it is unfair, the Task Force could not totally pinpoint those citizens for whom the system is unfair. Among the questions and issues raised were: 1. Is the issue one of fairness based on reality or is it one of perception? 2. Is the system unfair to African Americans and women? 3 . Is it fair that Chapel Hill Township voters can determine the destiny of the county without any consideration of the needs and concerns of the- remaining parts of the county (i.e. the recent school bond referendum)? The Task Force struggled with these issues as noted by the earlier 5 to 3 vote. However, the Task Force felt that whether or not it is reality or perception, there are citizens who do perceive that the system is unfair and does not work for them. Therefore by an 8 to 0 vote, the Task Force recommends that you consider and implement the following points: 1. That the Board implement various strategies to insure input from rural citizens and communities. For example, the recent Board meetings at different locations throughout the county need to be continued and published. 2. That the Board study and implement ways to bridge the gap that seems to be widening between Chapel Hill Township and the rest of the County. This "Us vs Them" mentality does not serve us well as a community. As to the third charge, what changes are necessary to achieve a more fair representation - the Task Force again by an 8 to 10 vote, recommends that if the current system is changed, the following needs to occur: 1. That the Board of Commissioners be expanded from 5 to 7 members; and 2. That the election method be changed from the current at large system to a district at-large system or to cumulative voting which is one type of the proportional election method. With the exception of the 5 to 3 vote on the first charge, all of the recommendations in the report were made by an 8 to 40 vote. (MINORITY REPORT) In summary, we have made a "good faith" effort to address the charge as instructed by the Board. We have also come to realize that regardless of whether its perception or reality, there are citizens in our county who no longer believe that their views are represented by the Board. It is quite evident that this is a challenge that must be met in order for all citizens in the county to trust the ability of our local officials to. be sensitive to the needs of all citizens. On behalf of the Task Force, I thank you for the opportunity we had to struggle with these important issues. This Task Force stands ready in its entirety to assist you r to implement any recommendation contained in this report. w Are there Questions? Thank you