Editorial

News Virginian
Published: December 4, 2007

Few things in politics - and free societies, for that matter - are more sacred than elections. Fundamental to the process is voters knowing precisely that for which they are voting and why.

It almost defies credulity that city officials have struggled to provide clear, consistent explanations on the bond referendum and apparently did not know the particulars when they decided to pursue that avenue in the first place.

Part of the problem, it appears, is that two key players, City Manager Doug Walker and City Attorney Robert C. Lunger, were new to the referendum game. Neither had "been involved in a bond referendum process before," according to minutes from City Council's Aug. 13 meeting. The fact is, few elected officials in this region have any experience in the process, since bond referendums are rare here. That - along with the complexities of city code and its unusual supermajority option, allowing a vote of four of five council members to approve bonds absent a referendum - helped set the stage for confusion.

Another factor was city officials' desire to move quickly. When Walker and Lunger made their presentation to council in August on the referendum, the city faced a Sept. 7 deadline to obtain a court order to put the questions on the fall ballot. Opting for a special election would have been costly and raised logistical concerns, such as "using paper-only ballots and scheduling around the presidential primaries," according to meeting minutes.

Since no one particularly liked the idea of waiting another year to decide on such vital projects as stormwater improvements, that made it imperative in officials' minds to get the questions on the Nov. 6 ballot.

So, while it is easy to find fault with city officials on the referendum fiasco, they admittedly were in a difficult position from the start. This is among the reasons some people - including many state lawmakers - say the best course is for elected officials to skip the referendum option altogether and simply make the tough decisions themselves. In retrospect, what happened here appears to be a good case study for that position.

The referendum saga also should give our leaders reason to consider whether city code needs tinkering. Deciphering any city code can be a frustrating enterprise, but on the subject of bonds and supermajorities Waynesboro's code seems confounding to an extreme. Like more than a few other problems confronting the current City Council, this one is a relic of other eras.

However, neither council nor city staff should be left off the hook for the bond muddle. Recall that over the summer, when capital improvement bonds became a hot topic, council members believed they could approve borrowing money for the work by a simple majority. Then officials awoke to the realization that a supermajority was required. Checking city code would seem the first place to start. But officials apparently did not bother until the bond ball had rolled halfway down the hill.

When the referendum option arose, officials, both appointed and elected, failed to get clear answers and relay those to the public, so that when voters entered the polling booths, they understood clearly and precisely what their decision would mean.

Moving quickly to avoid a costly special election was understandable. So too was the subsequent struggle to comprehend the considerable nuances of the law. Still, failing to get the facts straight and then convey a full, accurate explanation of the process to voters in advance of ballots being cast is an unacceptable outcome.

Staff and council owe the citizens an accounting of what went wrong and why as well as a clear plan for fixing the problems and avoiding such a mess in the future. We anxiously wait to hear more from our city leaders.