Westfield, is it time to become a class 2 city?

By RON MOORE

Guest Columnist

Editor’s note: This column is the second in a series of four addressing the issue of whether Westfield should change its status from a class 3 to a class 2 city. The Westfield City Council is set to have that discussion at its June 13 meeting. All four columns from Mr. Moore will appear in the pages of The Reporter prior to the meeting.

The City of Westfield continues to grow and put stress on the sheer number of people serving in our local government. While the topic and discussion of making the change from a class 3 to a class 2 city seems to be surrounded by many issues and details, I would like to consider at this point the impact of more elected city councilors in our governance.

Within the current class 3 structure, we elect the Mayor, Clerk-Treasurer, and five district and two at-large city councilors (seven councilors in total). This structure has worked for a number of years as the city grew to its current size. We are reaching the point where this group of elected officials are at their individual maximum for time to serve.

I have noted that on a number of occasions, members of council have not had the time to read documents put in front of them in preparation for council meetings. I am certain their intent is to be prepared to the fullest degree for every meeting they attend. However, the number of issues they must be dealing with as the city grows another 33 percent puts great stress and strain on those who serve.

Within the structure of a class 2 city, we still elect a Mayor, City Clerk, and six district and three at-large city councilors (nine councilors in total). This means that the city will be divided into six districts which will allow for future growth while dealing with current issues spread among more councilors. Moving forward, that should provide enough elected officials to handle city governance as we grow by another 28 percent in population.

I have heard it said by one of our current councilors that the increase of two more councilors would dilute the value of each voter. Now that is an interesting thought, so let’s explore it.

When we now vote on Election Day, we have the opportunity to vote for three councilors: Our district representative and two at-large councilors. That means that we vote for three of the seven total councilor seats under the class 3 structure. That says that we, as voters, select just over 42 percent of the total council.

Under the class 2 structure, the city increases the number of districts and at-large representatives by one each (a total of nine councilors). So, when we vote in this case, we are voting for four councilors: Our district and three at-large councilors. That says we are now voting for nearly 45 percent of the total council representation. By the math, our vote now carries more weight and power, not less.

Exploring that point further, perhaps we need to look at it from the councilors’ perspective. Each time a city councilor votes today, each vote is one of seven votes. That means his or her vote counts for 14.28 percent of the total vote. Under a class 2 structure, each councilor’s vote is one of nine votes. That means that each vote is now 11.11 percent of the total vote. Perhaps this is the dilution of voting power the councilor was referring to and is concerned about.

By the math, it looks like the move to a class 2 city would benefit the public by increasing their voting power while decreasing the weighed power of each councilor. Sounds like “power to the people.”

At this point, don’t you think that we would be better served as a class 2 city?