By Maggie Young, Staff Writer

Published in print Feb. 25, 2015

Last Thursday, the League of Women’s Voters of the Piedmont Triad hosted a forum to address state Sen. Trudy Wade’s controversial N.C. Senate Bill 36, which suggests dramatic changes to the Greensboro City Council, its members and it district map.

The first draft of the bill eliminates at-large members of the city council, reduces the council’s size from nine members to seven, and creates seven new council districts.

The bill eliminates the mayor’s ability to vote on actions of the council, except in a tie, but offers the opportunity to veto some legislation.

After an amendment made on Thursday afternoon, the mayor’s ability to veto has also been abolished.

Many fear that restricting the mayor’s voting power means cutting off the direct line to the citizens of Greensboro.

Mayor Nancy Vaughan told The Carolinian after Thursday’s forum that the cutbacks suggested in the bill are “a significant reduction in the power that the people have.”

But the complaints do not stop there.

“It’s a fight being led by a lot of people who believe in small government,” UNCG’s College Democrats president, Dylan Frick, said.

“They are trying to do the very thing they stand against, which is control local election— local government,” Frick concluded.

As it currently stands, there will be no opportunity for the citizens of Greensboro to vote on the matter.

Because of this, the council voted on, and unanimously opposed, the bill last Wednesday, sending a clear message: let the citizens have a say.

The council does, however, support extending the terms of council members from two years to four, and agreed to hold a referendum on the matter in the hopes that a compromise can be met with Wade.

In the forum held Thursday night, roughly 50 people braved the biting cold to come voice their opinions and ask questions about the bill.

The forum’s panel consisted of three people: Michael Crowell, professor of public law and government at the UNC-Chapel Hill School of Government; Carolyn Allen, former mayor and at-large member of the council; and Florence Gatten, civic leader and former at-large member of the council.

Allen and Gatten made several points to voice their passion for Greensboro and their distaste for the bill.

Crowell offered a strictly legal and logistical position on the matter.

Rather than focusing on the pros and cons, the forum’s main aim was to provide education and expertise on the bill and the general bill passing process.

Wade did not attend the forum and she has not responded to The Carolinian’s request for a comment.

While discussing the logistics for changing the democratic process within a city, Crowell stated that “it has not been common for the legislature to act on its own.”

As North Carolina has grown, however, the legislature has become increasingly involved in the way local governments run their cities.

Such is the case with Bill 36.

Many have argued that the bill allows for political overreach and during the forum there were consistent questions concerning the legality of the proposed actions.

Crowell assured the audience that, to his knowledge, there is nothing illegal being proposed.

That being said, he addressed Article 2, Section 24 of the North Carolina Constitution, which limits what the legislature can do by local act.

This means that the legislature cannot single out one local government to make changes if the changes are deemed unconstitutional.

Currently, if the Greensboro City Council or Greensboro citizens desire to change the city’s election process, the changes may be put to a vote or the citizens may petition for a referendum.

Were Bill 36 to pass, however, Greensboro would have this authority revoked.

Only if the legislature wanted to change election methods would a change be made.

Crowell stated that there didn’t seem to be any disjunction between the bill and the state constitution, but whether or not aspects of the bill are unconstitutional has yet to be explicitly determined.

Gatten— who prefaced her statements in the forum by warning her audience that it was likely her comments could offend— nostalgically spoke about what Greensboro and the City Council used to be.

“You would have people that were directly accountable for the whole city… but who were looking out for the interests of a district to be sure a district was not overlooked,” Gatten asserted.

According to Gatten, this will not be the case if the bill is passed into law.

As far as UNCG involvement goes, a lot will change if the bill passes and the proposed district map is adopted.

UNCG is currently a part of District 4. With the new map in place UNCG would be included in District 7.

According to Marshall Bennett, a member of UNCG’s College Democrats, the new district “could potentially be gerrymandered to favor certain candidates.”

Frick also noted that the new zoning of District 7 includes precincts with historically lower voter turnout. 

In reference to the book “While England Slept,” by Winston Churchill, Gatten argued that while the citizens slept, many aspects of Greensboro’s government were reconstructed for them. 

Regarding the Senate Bill 36 controversy, however, Gatten applauded her audience, saying, “Thanks to you, we are not asleep.”