Lessons to be Learned From the Council Election

The News & Advance
Published: May 10, 2008

In the wake of Tuesday’s City Council elections in Lynchburg, there are some things that will change and some things that won’t.
What won’t change are three of the four faces of the ward representatives. Incumbents Michael Gillette of Ward I, Ceasor Johnson of Ward II and Jeff Helgeson of Ward III were all re-elected.
What also probably won’t change is four-member bloc that is on the winning side of many council votes: Mayor Joan Foster, Vice Mayor Bert Dodson, Johnson and Gillette. At the short end of the stick, Helgeson will likely be joined by Councilman Scott Garrett and Councilman-elect Turner Perrow of Ward IV, protégé of the retiring Joe Seiffert who urged him to run for his old seat.
What we hope will change once the new council is organized July 1 is how the council itself operates, how its members reach decisions, how council interacts with the public and how efficiently council operates.
Let’s hope all seven council members learned a lesson or two or three from Tuesday’s results.
* Civility, courtesy and respect for your colleagues and the public are incompatible with an “I know best because I’m on council” attitude.
Ward I’s Gillette had the toughest re-election race, facing off against two opponents: retired businessman Jim Martin and local college professor Tom Shahady. He won a second term in office with less than a plurality of the votes cast (47.5 percent); Martin and his pro-business campaign pulled in 41.25 percent while Shahady’s environmental, smart-growth campaign garnered 11.25 percent.
“It was a close race,” Gillette said, speaking after the totals were in. “I respect both my opponents. … I hope I can take on some of their ideas as we try to make a better four years coming than the four years that have passed.”
Though Gillete, speaking with The News & Advance on Tuesday night, specifically mentioned Shahady’s environmental positions as an idea he could “take on,” he and his allies on council also need to be mindful of Martin’s critique of Gillete’s first term. And it’s a critique that more than 41 percent of Ward I’s voters agreed with.
Specifically, Martin has mentioned polarization on council, a disdain by its four-member majority for the three-member minority and a seemingly dismissive attitude for citizen opinions and board recommendations.
There’s more than a small degree of validity to Martin’s criticisms. A solid, four-person majority hardly ever needs to reach across the political divide to those in the minority or take their concerns under consideration. A solid majority that rarely wavers also doesn’t have to take into account differing opinions of the public and conclusions of bodies such as the planning commission.
* There’s nothing wrong with bringing a businessperson’s hard-nosed mindset to council.
In Ward IV, Perrow, a self-employed engineer, eked out a 32-vote victory over his former E.C. Glass High School government teacher, Marie Waller.
Over and over in his campaign, Perrow stressed his business background, telling would-be supporters he’d put that experience to use on council. Successful businesses operate quickly and efficiently, in a setting in which time is money. Successful business owners know when to invest in their operations, when to cut back and how to know the difference.
For example, Perrow’s a backer of Lynchburg’s public education system; he’s a Glass grad and an alumnus of Virginia Military Institute. No one can call into question his support for public education. He also recognizes the value and the need for continuing and strengthening the city’s downtown revitalization efforts.
But, by virtue of his background, it’s not in his nature to give any institution a blank check on the taxpayers’ tab, whether it’s the public schools or any downtown developer. That was the message the majority of Ward IV’s voters sent with their ballots, and it’s a message the rest of council would be wise to heed.
* There is nothing wrong about having a contrary opinion, arguing your point of view and sticking to your guns.
In Ward III, the perennially pugnacious Jeff Helgeson handily defeated Nat Marshall for a second term on council, winning with more than 65 percent of the vote.
No one could ever accuse Helgeson, council’s only publicly professed Republican, of being a shrinking violet. He has opinions, and he’s not reticent about voicing them or voting his convictions.
Some folks think that the sign of a council that works well is one unanimous vote after another. Hardly. A council with members who adhere to the “Can’t we all just get along” school of thought is not one that serves the public good. Rather, split votes, contrary opinions expressed and arguments over policy are signs of a council that takes its job seriously.
* Council is not a debating society, whose members drone on and on, listening to themselves talk but reaching no decisions.
As good as debate can be, there comes a time for a decision, a time for acting.
And that’s where the current council has had a bit of a problem.
Take, for example, last summer’s rezoning request for tiny tract of land across from James River Day School on Boonsboro Road. The planning commission recommended nixing the request, but council let the matter languish for more than three months before reaching a decision.
That was simply not fair to residents, the property owner, the developer, neighbors, anyone. It’s a situation that should never be repeated.

* * *
Bottom line, there’s nothing wrong with a council that argues, debates and is hard-nosed and business-like. It just needs to be accompanied by an air of civility toward each other and the public.