Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-10-20; Item 3 - Discussion Regarding the Membership Composition of the Planned Committee to Examine the Election Method for Members of the Orange County Board of Commissioners 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: September 10, 2020 Action Agenda Item No. 3 SUBJECT: Discussion Regarding the Membership Composition of the Planned Committee to Examine the Election Method for Members of the Orange County Board of Commissioners DEPARTMENT: County Attorney & County Manager ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: John Roberts, County Attorney, 245- Excerpt from May 5, 2020 Virtual 2318 Business Meeting Minutes Greg Wilder, County Manager's Office, 245-2300 PURPOSE: To discuss the membership composition of the planned committee to be appointed to make recommendations on the election method for members of the Orange County Board of Commissioners. BACKGROUND: At the Board of Commissioners' April 7, 2020 Virtual Business meeting, a petition was voiced that the Board discuss and potentially change a portion of the process under which some or all Board members are elected. The Board subsequently discussed the issue at its May 5, 2020 Virtual Business meeting and voted to: 1) Establish a committee to study alternative methods of election; 2) Select members for the committee no later than January 31, 2021; 3) Have the committee review options and report back by July 31, 2021; and 4) For the Board to review the recommendations, and if necessary conduct public hearings and make a decision in time for the March 2022 primary election. CURRENT CONSIDERATION This item is presented for the Board to discuss the membership composition of the proposed committee. During the May 5t" meeting, there was discussion that the group should consist of experts, residents, nonprofits, etc., but there was not consensus. There was, however, consensus that the Board of Commissioners, as constituted after December 7, 2020 should decide on the ultimate individual appointees to the committee. Staff seeks direction from the Board on: 0 the total number of members the committee should include; 2 • whether the committee should consist entirely of residents; • whether election or other experts will be considered/appointed; • whether there should be representation from nonprofit entities; • whether there will be a formal application process; and • any other details regarding the establishment of the committee. Assuming there is an application process, a formal determination now of the general consistency and number of members of the committee will allow the Clerk's office to begin soliciting membership applications and should allow for a sizeable pool of candidates for the Board to review by December 7, 2020, with appointments made by the January 31, 2021 deadline. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with discussing this item. SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: There is no Orange County Social Justice Goal impact associated with discussing this item. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There is no Orange County Environmental Responsibility Goal impact associated with discussing this topic. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board discuss the nature of the committee to be established based on the considerations noted above and provide direction to staff. � 3 APPROVED 6/2/2020 MINUTES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS VIRTUAL BUSINESS MEETING May 5, 2020 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Virtual Business Meeting on Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Rich and Commissioners Jamezetta Bedford, Mark Dorosin, Sally Greene, Earl McKee, Mark Marcoplos, and Renee Price COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) Chair Rich called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Due to current public health concerns, the Board of Commissioners conducted a Virtual Business meeting on May 5, 2020. Members of the Board of Commissioners participated in the meeting remotely. As in prior meetings, members of the public was able to view and listen to the meeting via live streaming video at orangecountync.gov/967/Meeting- Videos and on Orange County Gov-TV on channels 1301 or 97.6 (Spectrum Cable). In this new virtual process, there are two methods for public comment. • Written submittals by email • Speaking during the virtual meeting Detailed public comment instructions for each method is provided at the bottom of this agenda. (Pre-registration is required.) 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda Chair Rich said she will be meeting with the Mayors tomorrow morning about moving forward as it relates to Covid-19, and she will share an update with the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) regarding the next steps. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair acknowledged the public charge. ARTS MOMENT No Arts Moment will be available for this meeting. 2. Public Comments a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda Tony Blake said he is concerned about the convenience centers severely limiting the amount of household construction debris. He said if the Commissioners recall one of 17 4 Dave Scott said the program is set to begin in August. He said students in grades 6-12 currently have devices, which they will keep for now, and turn in at the end of the summer. He said 2-5 graders also use chrome books, but there is not a one to one program for elementary school; however, during Covid-19 these younger grades have been provided devices, if needed. Commissioner Marcoplos asked if CHCCS would include information about anything alarming or intriguing that has been detected on devices, when it sends its report to the Orange County Board of Commissioners. Interim CHCCS Superintendent Abele said there are red flags that the word search software finds. He said suicide is one of the words that CHCCS would definitely follow up on. Chair Rich asked if there is a plan in place to reallocate the monies for the 4 years, should the state provide funding for this technology. Paul Laughton said staff can adjust the CIP if the funds are received early enough; and otherwise, staff would re-purpose those funds, keep it in the technology line item, and come back to the Orange County Board of Commissioners to approve any reallocations. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Marcoplos to adopt the resolution approving the lease agreement and authorize the Chair to sign the resolution regarding the agreement between Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools and Trinity3 Technology. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Discussion Regarding Election Method for Members of the Oranqe County Board of Commissioners The Board considered discussing the election method for members of the Orange County Board of Commissioners. John Roberts reviewed the information below: BACKGROUND: At the Board's April 7, 2020 Business meeting, a petition was voiced that the Board discuss and potentially change a portion of the process under which some or all Board members are elected. A summary of historical information, along with some current applicable information, is provided below as a basis for Board discussion on this topic. HISTORY 2005-2008 At the Board of Commissioners' January 24, 2005 regular (now Business) meeting, representatives of a group of Orange County residents addressed the Board and submitted a 1,200-signature petition to the Board regarding the method by which the members of the Board of Commissioners were elected in Orange County. The representatives requested that the Board review the then current method of election for the members of the Board, which entailed all five members of the Board being nominated and elected to staggered four-year terms on an at-large basis. At the Board's direction, the County Manager and County staff reviewed the issue and the petition submitted and provided a report to the Board at the May 5, 2005 work session. The report provided an initial framework of information upon which the Board of Commissioners could deliberate and determine as appropriate any further steps in evaluating the issue and responding to the request and petition submitted. 18 5 The Board then pursued a series of meetings over the next thirteen months, including: public hearings; • Board discussions on possible draft district maps/plans for either a five or seven- member • Board; and • decisions on specific map/plan issues. The public hearings and discussions led to the development of a map/plan (for a seven- member board that met all statutory requirements. The County Attorney prepared a draft resolution calling for a November 2006 referendum and the Board approved that resolution and the election plan/map at its June 27, 2006 regular meeting in preparation for a voter referendum as required by the North Carolina General Statutes. In the November 2006 referendum, the voters subsequently approved the election plan/map with more than two-thirds of voters supporting the initiative. The election plan/map was implemented with the May 2008 primary election and all Board members since that time have qualified and been elected under the plan. The election plan/map approved in 2006 established a district/at large system for electing seven members of the Board of Commissioners, and includes two nominating districts. • Three seats on the Board are filled, with staggered four-year terms, by individuals residing in District 1 and nominated by the voters in District 1 during the primary election. These district-nominated candidates are then elected by all the voters in the entire County during the general election. • Two seats on the Board are filled, with staggered four-year terms, by individuals residing in District 2 and nominated by the voters in District 2 during the primary election. These district-nominated candidates are then elected by all the voters in the entire County during the general election. • The other two other seats on the Board are filled, with staggered four-year terms, by individuals residing anywhere in the County and nominated by all voters in the County during the primary election. These "at large" candidates are then elected by all the voters in the entire County during the general election. In summary, five district seats on the Board are filled based on district residency and district nomination during the primary election, followed by countywide election in the general election. The two at large seats are filled based on countywide nomination and countywide election. 2011 - Review of District Elections Map Based on 2010 Census Final numbers for the 2010 Census were published in 2011 providing new population numbers for Orange County as a whole as well as for the two current electoral districts. North Carolina General Statute 153A-22 states, "If a county is divided into electoral districts for the purpose of nominating or electing persons to the board of commissioners, the board of commissioners may find as a fact whether there is substantial inequality of population among the districts." Population growth or decline in districts can lead to significant deviations in the numbers of residents between districts, thereby compromising the integrity of the districts and the election plan as a whole. Staff's review of the 2010 Census population totals in relation to the election plan/map and district boundaries showed very minimal changes in the population ratios for the districts. Staff prepared an agenda item for the Board, and, at its 19 6 June 7, 2011 meeting, the Board adopted a "Resolution Acknowledging the Results from the 2010 Census Indicating Orange County Remains in Lawful Compliance with Applicable Requirements for Board of County Commissioners' Nominating Districts," thereby making no changes to the map/plan/method by which Board members were elected. 2016-2018 In late 2016 and early 2017, members of the Board expressed an interest in discussing and possibly amending the current election method for seats on the Board of Commissioners. The Board discussed the topic at its March 28, 2017 Board work session. However, no additional action occurred at that time. In mid-2018, members of the Board expressed additional interest in discussing and possibly amending the current election method for seats on the Board of Commissioners. The Board discussed the topic at its September 6, 2018 Board work session. However, no additional action occurred at that time. CURRENT CONSIDERATION As noted above, a recent Board petition expressed an interest in discussing and possibly amending the current election method for seats on the Board of Commissioners. Several related issues have been voiced regarding potentially amending the method. Staff has addressed some of those issues below. If the Board chose to move forward with proposing an amendment to the current election method, when could a voter referendum occur? • The North Carolina General Statutes require that counties schedule special voter referenda only in even years when all the voting precincts in the County will be open. That limits this issue to the general election in 2020 and the primaries and general elections in 2022 and 2024. Further, if the Board determines to change the current election method and place that change on the November 2020 ballot everything necessary to complete the change should be ready by July 24, 2020 in order to allow elections staff adequate time to prepare ballots. What is the timeframe to place a proposed election method/plan on the ballot for voter referendum? • As noted above if the general election in November 2020 is the desired election on which to have a ballot question on the Board's election method the Elections Director has requested that all decisions be complete and the ballot language submitted by July 24, 2020. This is due to an anticipated substantial increase in absentee voting and will allow the Board of Elections' staff ample time to prepare the ballot. • If the Board desires a similar level of public input as was obtained prior to the 2005/2006 change to the current method it is unlikely that can be achieved given the current situation due to the stay-at-home orders and technological challenges. Depending on the Board's potential interest related to the election method, will population changes related to the 2020 Census need to be considered? • The 2010 Census is currently the basis for all population calculations. There may have been changes related to Orange County's population since 2010; however, any changes as reflected in the 2020 Census are not yet available and likely will not be available until 2021. If the Board acts now to alter districts, the 2020 Census data could require the Board to revisit election districts in the near future. 20 7 PUBLIC COMMENT: Tony Blake said Commissioner Dorosin was kind enough to respond to his email, and provided more current conversations that have taken place. He said he supports the discussion and thinks improvements could be made, but he has the following concerns about pushing this change through too quickly. He summarized his concerns: • As is stands right now, the "voting method" agenda item 6-b lacks definition and a suggested plan/model for discussion. • Discussion of changing the voting method is too important to be rushed. • Data is old and there is not enough time to collect/update the data, have the discussion and get feedback before the 2020, election. • A target of 2020 would put a lot of pressure on staff who are already dealing with emergency conditions and budget concerns. • Meeting "virtually" is still somewhat less effective than face to face. • Part of the BOCC is "lame duck", and it is important that the newly elected commissioners be a part of driving this conversation. • The 2020 census results may change things and require a new look within 2 years, resulting in wasted efforts. Commissioner Dorosin thanked Tony Blake for his comments, and others the BOCC received. Commissioner Dorosin said he does not have concerns about the 2020 primary, but rather the primary illustrated some if the issues that have been discussed in Orange County for the past few years. Commissioner Dorosin summarized his comments, which are in the agenda. He said he has been talking about this since 2016, and this is an on-going issue with the Board but the Board has not made any decisions. He said November is the earliest possible time to make changes, and that may be too soon, but if the majority of the Board does not want to do anything, then it should vote as such, and move on. He said it is his preference that the County moves to 7 single-member districts. He said the primary highlighted that the district one presidential year race is the only seat on the county commission that is a multimember election, and all others are single member elections. He said the multimember seat is the only multimember seat on the ballot, which is confusing to the public. Commissioner Dorosin said they need an electoral system where commissioners are all elected the same way, and that is by single member districts. He said another important issue is that the County will have to draw the districts once the census comes out, and it is important for the BOCC to make decisions now and do everything at one time. Commissioner Dorosin said there have been concerns that going to single member districts will lead to dominance by the southern part of Orange County, i.e.: Chapel Hill and Carrboro. He said he feels these concerns are overblown, and in the last two at large elections residents have elected representatives that live in the Chapel Hill area. Commissioner Dorosin said one of the challenges with multi-member districts, is that they encourage voters to do single shot voting. He said this is a legitimate strategy, but not necessarily a fair one. Commissioner Marcoplos said this is a complicated issue. He said in 1992 there was a group who discussed this, and recommended cumulative voting. He said he disagrees that single district is the most democratic way to go, and proportional representation is used by a majority of countries around the world, and does not require districts. He agreed it is important to not rush this discussion, and to engage the public. 21 $ Commissioner Price said schools board races are also multicandidate. She said this is not the time to rush, especially as in person public hearings cannot currently happen. She said this requires more work than the BOCC can accomplish in a short amount of time. Commissioner McKee asked John Roberts if the BOCC were to change the districts, would this go back to the legislature. John Roberts said no, changing the districts can be done by County voter referendum. Commissioner McKee said given the difficulty with virtual meetings, he does not think the BOCC can go forward with this because the public cannot attend. He said it is critical to hold off any of these discussions until face-to-face meetings resume. Chair Rich said all the school boards are elected the same way, as are the municipalities, but the County Commissioners only have one such election. Chair Rich said after the primary, she had voters tell her that it was not a fair vote due to people single shot voting. She said this is not the way to hold voting. She said she believes that Commissioner Dorosin just wants to begin a discussion, and create a committee or a sub-group to move the topic forward. Commissioner Dorosin said he is not suggesting that this needs to be rushed, but he wanted to know if there is a BOCC majority that wants to explore this further, and, if so, move forward. He agreed that public input is important, and this meeting platform is problematic. He said he finds cumulative voting interesting, but feels it is not within the realm of possibilities until the general assembly changes. He said changing to single member districts can be done without the legislature. He said there are ways to create districts that do not carve the County up like a pizza. Commissioner Dorosin said many voters told him that they were unaware they could have voted for two candidates in District 1. He said he believed that the BOCC could have something ready for the 2022 primary. Commissioner McKee said he does not believe that people threw their votes away by just voting for one candidate, but rather voters made a conscious decision to vote for just one candidate. He said the ballot clearly tells the voter if it can vote for one or two candidates. He said this discussion has come up over the years, and nothing has moved forward, so it must be that people do not want to change the process. Commissioner Price said she agreed with Commissioner McKee. She said this election process has been going on for 12 years, and no one has challenged or changed it. She said it is important to determine the problem that the BOCC is trying to solve. She said she would support having a task force to look at this issue further, in anticipation of the 2022 election. She said people have the right to do what they like with their votes, and she is more concerned about guaranteeing voting rights, and access to voting. She said this election was not unfair. Chair Rich said she did not say it was unfair, but she said that there were thousands of single shot votes. She said it is a different kind of race than the other Orange County Board of Commissioners has to run. Commissioner Price said that is correct, but the residents are exercising their voting rights. Commissioner Dorosin said he has brought this topic up for 4 years, and he wanted to highlight the inequities that exist since changing to this district system. He said this is not about the most recent election. Commissioner Greene agreed there is not enough time to get it on the 2020 ballot, for all the reasons that have been stated. She said it is not just the BOCC that is interested in discussing this issue, but rather the community is interested. She said the BOCC owes it to itself and the community to have this discussion at length in the fall. Commissioner Marcoplos said he agreed with Commissioners Greene and Dorosin. 22 9 Commissioner Marcoplos said if one wins the Democratic primary, then one has basically won the election. He said this leaves some residents feeling powerless, and this is where cumulative voting, or rank choice voting, could come into play. He said one of the benefits of moving ahead with a thorough and deliberate process is that the BOCC will learn the type of legislature, with which it is dealing, in the meantime. Commissioner Bedford agreed that the timeline of November 2020 is too soon. Commissioner Bedford said this should not be the work of the Commissioners, but rather the work of unbiased and independent individuals (e.g. NAACP, UNC School of Government, League of Women Voters, etc.). She said she read the minutes from previous years, and this issue is incredibly complex, and new issues arise in each conversation. Commissioner Bedford said she is not sure that March 2022 will be good either, because the census data must be included. She said it is also important to include the two new members of the BOCC. Commissioner Bedford said she does not think Orange County needs the attention of the legislature right now. She said she was concerned to educate herself on Orange County election history, and it is very important to insure that all voices are represented, and any new districts would have to be carefully considered to insure that. She said she would not want to further exacerbate the rural/urban divide. She said she is willing to tackle this, and 2021 may be a better time than this fall. She said it is important to get out of the current crisis, so that staff can afford this proper attention. Commissioner Dorosin said he disagrees that the BOCC needs to wait until the census numbers come back, because whether or not the BOCC wants to change the method is independent of the census data. He said the policy aspect of the conversation can proceed while the data is pending. A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Greene establish a committee to study revising the electoral method for members of the Orange County Board of Commissioners, and the committee should involve a broad range of residents of the community, including UNC staff, with expertise in elections, community-based non-profits. This committee could be charged to do its work in the fall of 2020, depending on the pandemic. The goal of this committee is to have a report and various options presented to the Orange County Board of Commissioners, who will hold the public hearings, and put a proposal before the voters in March 2022 primary. And talk with Board of Election as to when a decision would have to be made to get it on the March 2022 primary. Commissioner Greene seconded the motion, for the purpose of discussion. She said she agrees, in whole, with the motion, but not with the make up of the committee. She said she was thinking more of an independent/professional group. She said she is not sure that the BOCC can decide on the make-up of the committee this evening. Commissioner Dorosin said he would accept a friendly amendment. Commissioner Dorosin proposed that the BOCC make a decision on the make-up of the committee by December 1st Commissioner Price asked if it is clear who will determine the make up of the committee. She said personally, she would want members of the local community to be involved, and not just outside professionals. Commissioner Dorosin said the BOCC would determine the make up of the committee by December 1, 2020. Commissioner McKee reiterated that this virtual platform does not provide sufficient public input, and before the BOCC goes forward with any motion, it is important to have this discussion again once face-to-face meetings resume. 23 10 Commissioner McKee said this discussion should occur in conjunction with the census data. He said he will vote against this motion, as it is important to have public, face to face discussion and then proceed with the formation of a committee. Commissioner Marcoplos said he disagreed, and there is a lot of interest in changing the way that commissioners are elected. He said waiting for face to face discussions with the public will only lead to residents voicing opinions on the way they want to be represented, not whether or not the BOCC should look into the issue in the first place. He said having a date certain is important. Commissioner Bedford said it is bad governance to have a motion on an issue that was not on the agenda and to pass it tonight. She said Commissioner Dorosin could write it up and bring it back at another time. She said if there will be a survey about the district tax, then a question on this topic could also be included. She said if a date certain is preferred, then she would recommend December 10th, so new BOCC members could participate. She said she cannot vote for this motion tonight. Commissioner McKee said having the public speak about what they want is exactly what the BOCC needs to hear. He said the public's interest in this topic is not going to wane by waiting for face-to-face meetings. Commissioner Price asked Commissioner Dorosin if he would mind delaying this vote and coming back with a more spelled out plan before the BOCC goes on summer break. She said she is still unsure about the committee, how to select it, and who should make these decisions. She said she does support the overall idea, but does not want to rush. Commissioner Greene said the BOCC would be better served if this motion were made at a later meeting, before the summer break. She said this motion should not clarify who would be on the committee. She said the BOCC does not know what will happen with this pandemic, and if online meetings continue in the fall, then this is not a good platform for this type of discussion. Commissioner Dorosin amended his motion, which Commissioner Greene seconded for purposes of discussion: a. Establish a committee to consider alternatives methods to elect the Orange County Board of Commissioners. b. The Orange County Board of Commissioners will select members for this committee by January 31, 2021; c. The committee will meet to discuss alternative options and will bring their recommendations to the Orange County Board of Commissioners by July 31, 2021; d. The Orange County Board of Commissioners will review the recommendations, conduct public hearings, seek public input, and, if need be, to make a decision in time to be included in a referendum on the March 2022 primary. Commissioner McKee asked John Roberts if one can amend one's own motions. John Roberts said yes. Commissioner Greene said she liked the second motion much more, but suggested changing "if needed" to "if possible". Commissioner Dorosin said the BOCC could revise it at a later time, if need be. John Roberts said the rules of procedure only allow two amendments, so Commissioner Greene's amendment is moot. VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nays, 1 (Commissioner Bedford) 7. Reports NONE