The census is well underway, with Loudoun County checking in at 77% response rate. Late this year and early in 2011, state legislators will be deep in discussions regarding redistricting the House of Delegates and Senate district boundaries. A nice explanation of how that will go about happening is discussed here. Similarly, Loudoun County’s magisterial districts will also likely be redrawn in 2011, and Supervisor Lori Waters (R-Broad Run) has been making waves as to drastically changing the make up of the districts.

Supervisor Waters introduced on January 20, 2010, an action item that recommends exploring changes to the Board of Supervisors terms and districts. The changes she wishes to explore are: 1) staggered terms for Supervisors (i.e., 4 or 5 supervisors running every 4 years instead of all 9 at the same time); 2) an increase or decrease of the number of supervisor seats; and 3) having at-large representatives instead of district-based representation.Proponents of staggered terms say that moving to this type of system would ensure board continuity and would preclude the loss of institutional knowledge should there be a mass purge of supervisors. It can be argued that board continuity would be increased the longer that supervisors have to work with each other. Shorter terms of office (i.e., two years) would give the supervisors less chance to work together as a team, if there are supervisors being voted out every two years. Also, the “loss of institutional knowledge” argument is completely laughable, as incoming supervisors rely on paid county staff to bring them up to speed. The paid staff are the heart and soul of county government, and are the true “institutional knowledge”.

Staggered terms would also mean that with elections every two years, fund-raising will become more prevalent. With fewer candidates among whom to spread dollars (likely to incumbents), it would become inherently more expensive for citizens to mount serious challenges. And we would lose the opportunity for a “throw the bums out” movement, a la 2007, which is all the populist rage in politics today.

Ms. Waters also proposes looking into the possibility of reducing the number of supervisor seats. Currently, Loudoun County has 8 supervisors and one at-large representative. Waters’ action item used 2005 data to compare the number of residents represented in Loudoun with similar sized counties in Virginia. But 2009 census estimates put Loudoun’s population at just over 301,000, an 18% increase from 2005, and we are still growing. Using 2009 data, the 8 district-based supervisors represent an average of 37,646 residents each. Waters estimates that Loudoun can get by with 7 supervisors, representing over 43,000 residents per seat, on par with Prince William County, larger in population. Why we would want to increase the number of residents represented is beyond me. It would entail making the supervisor a full-time position, and would almost certainly require a hike in the supervisors’ salaries. Interestingly, Supervisor Waters voted to increase the salaries of the Supervisors by 84% in 2006. In a time of budget belt-tightening, is that what we really want to do, when teacher and school staff salaries are being frozen?

(When I questioned her on this in 2006, her e-mail response was “I do believe that whomever serves on the Board of Supervisors should be fairly compensated for their time, especially when most weeks this is a full-time job despite our technical “part-time” status.”)

But the most troubling aspect of Waters’ proposal is moving from a district-based representation to an at-large representation. The problems with this are many. First, Loudoun County is very diverse, from the go-go suburbia in the east to the pastoral west. Different sections of the county have different needs, and the only way to ensure fair representation of each sector of the county is to keep the district system. Second, supervisors today have opportunity to really get to know most of their constituents; moving to an at-large system with fewer seats would remove the connection supervisors have to their constituents, and vice-versa. Third, at-large voting systems bring with it the possibility of “manufactured majorities”, since an at-large vote is a “vote for four” (or five, depending on the year) system, and parties can run bloc campaigns, instead of district-by-district. This removes the issue of supervisors running for the good of their district and instead running for the county as a whole. Last, since an at-large system, with fewer seats and higher constituent numbers, would require the supervisor position to be a full-time job, only the wealthy would seemingly be able to run for office. As it stands now, in a part-time role, supervisors can continue to pursue a career and supplement their income with their county pay. Not necessarily so if the board becomes full-time.

So the district-based system of 9 supervisors, up for election every four years, is simply the best system for this county. There is no need to change.

Other References:

http://www.fixthelines.org/Abo…

http://archive.fairvote.org/?p…

http://www.wickedlocal.com/fra…

http://www.labyrinth.com/barb/…