How about some more ‘change’ at Amarillo City Hall?

amarillo

Let’s talk among ourselves about the upcoming municipal election.

Amarillo went through a “change election” in 2015 when voters unseated two incumbents and installed a majority of new guys on the five-member City Council; the third new guy won a seat vacated by an incumbent who was just keeping the seat warm until the election.

In May 2017, voters will fill the five seats on the council.

I’m wondering if someone will run solely on the platform of serious change in the city’s voting plan. I’m wondering also about discussing publicly a reform that would involve electing four council members from single-member districts, two of them at-large along with the mayor, who of course also would run citywide.

I wrote in 2013 that I was rethinking my earlier opposition to changing the city’s current five-member at-large council voting plan.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2013/12/re-thinking-single-member-districts/

So I’ll ask the question here. Are we ready to have a serious, adult conversation about changing the City Council’s voting plan?

I’m no longer confident that the at-large system is serving an increasingly diverse city of 200,000 residents, with burgeoning ethnic and racial minorities. The city is growing and it’s becoming a different community than it was a decade ago; it’s a much different place than it was 20 or 30 years ago.

Would such a plan be approved if it were put to a vote? We’ll never know if we don’t try. The city charter would need a serious rewriting. Changing it requires a municipal election.

First, though, we need to have a discussion among those willing to serve on the City Council, to set governing policy.

The so-called “agents of change” who were elected in May 2015 ought to demonstrate a serious commitment to significant change in the city’s governing policy.

That change ought to include a reform of the City Council composition. A hybrid council — partly single-member, partly at-large — such as what I’ve suggested hardly is unique. Indeed, it preserves an at-large option for two council seats that is similar to what’s been enacted in cities of comparable size all across Texas.

The debate until now has been whether to create single-member wards, while keeping the mayor’s seat as the only at-large seat on the council. I think a hybrid solution is more feasible.

At the very least, it’s worth a serious community discussion.

First, though, candidates ought to step up and initiate it.