CUMBERLAND – In what seems to be an election-year reoccurrence, one of Cumberland County's Supervisors has requested that the Board begin the process of looking into staggered election terms.

Supervisor Bobby Oertel, District Five, requested County Attorney, Howard Estes, to draft an ordinance that will be reviewed by the Board during its budget work session on Wednesday, February 16 to start the process but that motion was only made after opinions were exchanged between Supervisors.

To begin, Supervisor Oertel requested that the Board set a public hearing for its March meeting without first reviewing a draft ordinance that would be created by Estes.

“I propose that we start the procedure to adopt by ordinance the staggering of the terms that's allowed…by the Code of Virginia…We've got to advertise for two weeks and it's got to come back before anything is finalized,” said Oertel about wanting to advertise and hold a public hearing.

During the discussion, Estes explained the two methods the Board could use to change to staggered terms.

The options, he said, are either, by a referendum or by ordinance, which would have to be received by the Electoral Board 30 days before the qualification of candidates since this is an election year for Cumberland.

“And the Electoral Board is the one that picks which of the two of you all would be on the short, two-year terms,” noted Estes. “Automatically, we have four-year terms and the way you get it staggered is to go to two-year terms but the Electoral Board would make that decision either after the election…or prior to that. We do have time to do that if that was the wish of this Board.”

The Board of Supervisors could potentially draft its ordinance in such a form that it requires the Electoral Board to make its recommendation related to notification of the two-year terms in advance so that candidates would know if they were running for a two-year seat or a four-year seat, noted Estes.

“Why would we want to put in the staggered terms? Is something broken or not working right?” asked Supervisor Bill Osl, District One, when the topic was brought up for discussion by Oertel.

According to Estes, the Electoral Board must have received the ordinance 30 days before the qualification of candidates but can take action on the decision “up to the last day of the qualification of candidates.”

“They can wait up to that very last day but you all would need to direct them to take that action in the ordinance,” noted Estes about announcing which candidate would be running for what seat.

Supervisor Elbert Womack, District Four, explained that the candidate who ran for election in the “off year” would not receive “good voter turnout.”

“It's like what happened in the Town of Farmville this last election,” he said about his only concern with changing the Board's terms. “No one shows up to vote. It was a very few people who came out to vote and that's the part-that's my negative part of having staggered terms. I could go either way but that's going to be my negative. It could have happened over there very easily that someone could have wrote in a few names and they would have been in office. That's my draw back. That off year-people have a tendency to not show up.”

Chairman Van Petty, District Three, also agreed with Womack concerning the off-year elections and possibility of low voter turnout.

“There was some very slim numbers of people who showed up to vote at some of those precincts,” added Petty.

Again, Osl chimed in about the request to change the terms, “I'm waiting to hear what the positives are. Why are we doing this?”

Oertel responded, “To keep from having a full board elected at one time. That's my rationale. When you speak of uninterested voters that could be very indicative of that they are satisfied of who they've got… If they are dissatisfied, they'll come out and vote.”

In the past, the Board has been completely turned over several times, recounted County Administrator Judy Ownby and Assistant County Administrator Jill Matthews.

Supervisor Tim Kennell, District Two, explained how he was the “odd man out” in the last election.

“I think it promotes the continuity of the Board,” said Kennell about staggered terms. “I came in with doing as much homework and research as I could do to find out what my job was and it took me six months to get an understanding of that…So, if you are in a situation where you do turnover a complete board and it's happened…that's a lot of lost time to try to recover. If you have some people with some knowledge still remaining on the board when things do change, it promotes the ongoing continuity of the board…The continuity of the board is as important as throwing the bums out all at once.”

Afterwards, Oertel spoke up and moved the discussion along by stating, “I put this is the form of a motion to start the proceeding, in other words, to advertise and we'll come back, like any other ordinance with a public hearing and have a yes or no vote.”

The County Attorney then asked for clarification on the motion.

“Are you asking to set this for public hearing for the next Board meeting?” asked Estes.

“Yes,” responded Oertel. “To start the proceedings by advertising and set a public hearing for the next meeting.”

At this point, Supervisors Osl, Petty, and Womack requested that the ordinance first be created in a draft form and presented to the Board for review before setting a public hearing.

“It shouldn't be too hard to take it from the state code,” Oertel advised about not wanting the process to take too much time. “…What I don't want is to get up to the qualification time for new candidates…”

At that point, Estes advised that he could have the ordinance drafted by the Board's budget work session on Wednesday, February 16 and then after the review it could be set for a public hearing.

“I just don't see why we need to make it complicated…,” asserted Oertel about his original request.

Finally, Chairman Petty clarified the motion and the Board voted on directing the County Attorney to draft an ordinance for review at the Board's next meeting, which is a budget workshop that is set for Wednesday of this week.

When time came for a vote, the motion carried on a four to one vote. Supervisor Osl voted in opposition.