Now, dear readers, you have the probable
background on why Christiansburg Town Council candidates were asked about their thoughts on moving elections from May to November.
All six candidates responded to this question, among others, during the forum held
Thursday at Town Hall.
Candidate Huppert responded that the
official town position is to "wait and see" what happens now in Blacksburg and with Christiansburg's own voter turnout. He indicated that if the town's voter participation was low, discussion may start again. Note that Christiansburg's 2004 town council elections hit a
20 year low mark for voter participation, and 2006 elections had less than 1,250 ballots cast.
Mr. Vanhoozier said he agreed with the
official town position, linking a recent soil conservation district candidacy to that of town council elections being held in November. Some audience members were unsure if he was making comparisons about dirt or suggesting uninformed people participate in November's general elections.
Candidates Bishop and Showalter were supportive of changing town elections from May to November immediately in order to engage more residents, increase voter participation and save on election costs. Mr. Bishop stated that there was little risk of town candidates being unknown on a November ballot. Mr. Showalter mentioned school board seats were non-partisan with ballots being cast in November.
Candidate Chafin indicated it could be a good idea to change the election dates for town council money wise, yet he appeared confused about council terms now beginning in September and how that would work with November elections.
Councilman Barber reiterated his
January 15 position, stating that elections needed to be kept right where they are. Mr. Barber said that "if people care, they will vote" and "this is completely and totally Christiansburg's election." He also said it was time to get some money back from the .75 cent per $1 paid to the county, as it was financially responsible for election related costs (this was possibly a reference to the county's proposed tax rate of .75 cents per $100 valuation, without regard to the county's providing other services such as public libraries, recreational programs, and K-12 education).
The responses by the incumbents to this question during the candidate forums implies
official dialog about election dates has continued since discussed at council's January 15 meeting -- yet the matter has not been addressed again during public meetings. Election dates should not become a topic tainted by council's long term resistance to
FOIA compliance. These responses, however, might indicate citizens should not expect a related report from the town's attorney being presented at a future council meeting.
Responses also seemed to indicate some candidates don't follow local current events, nor have a firm grasp of inter-governmental funding processes and services.
Currently, May election costs are the responsibility of the towns, with oversight provided by the Montgomery County Board of Elections. Since Blacksburg has two polling places, it pays for 2/3 of the costs, and the remaining 1/3 is covered by Christiansburg. With Blacksburg changing elections to November, all associated costs for elections held in May will become the full responsibility of Christiansburg. With this change, Blacksburg will incur just under $5900 in one-time expenses for reissuance of voter registration cards while realizing a savings of about $3800 for every subsequent election.
To help voters understand issues and candidate positions, additional opportunities to meet these six individuals is being provided at upcoming forums to be held on
Saturday, April 19th at 2 p.m, in the Christiansburg Depot, Cambria and again on Sunday, April 27th at noon at the Coffee Depot, Downtown Christiansburg.
Note, too, that council's next regular meeting is scheduled for this Tuesday, April 15 at 7:30 p.m. in Town Hall (second floor), 100 East Main Street, Christiansburg.