4-244 (Council Size):

I’ve given relatively long explanations for why I think this is a good idea at some of our Council meetings and work sessions, but I’ll lay out my case again here. Here are some main themes:

• Every Councilor I’ve worked with or seen at the dais has brought value to the group. Even the Councilors I’ve disagreed with bring unique experiences and skill sets to the table. Including two more voices increases the odds that we will have ideas and perspectives that will add value to our work. 

• Opening up more Council positions allows opportunity for more pathways to service on the Council. Many elections for Council have had only one or two candidates on the ballot, but there have also been several in recent memory where three or more candidates ran. I also know from many years of working in local politics that even when there are two people on the ballot, often more people are interested in serving but just don’t want to run against the current candidates for a variety of reasons. Adding additional seats allows for more opportunity for service. 

• The motivations for at-large representatives and ward/district representatives are different. Supporters of Ward based representation prefer the close relationship possible with a ward representative, as well as the relatively higher value of an individual vote. I get that desire. My personal preference is for policy decisions to be biased toward creating the most public and private good, and I tend to think that focus on narrowly local concerns doesn’t move us in that direction.

For me, I think this year’s mayor race is a prime example. I have no doubt that each of the four candidates would bring value to the Council, each in unique ways. As a community we are wasting the opportunity to have more people put in good work for the community on City Council.