My latest op-ed appeared in The Virginian-Pilot Wednesday. Those who are regular readers of this blog know how I feel about the removal provisions of Virginia Code § 24.2-233. I’ve cited it often when discussing the removal of certain elected officials in the area as well as in the attempt by Norfolk City Council to replace our existing recall procedures with this section of the code.
The citizens of Virginia Beach have no other choice than to rely on the Virginia code because that city’s charter doesn’t contain anything else. So they have a School Board member who is working in Saudi Arabia and won’t resign. Kerry Dougherty says in her column that Sandra Smith-Jones wants to use Skype to attend meetings. She has, according to a separate article, contacted school staff about attending an audit committee meeting via teleconference. She cannot participate in the meetings.
While Dougherty makes light of the situation, it really isn’t a laughing matter. The removal process puts the burden – rightly so – on the voters who elected Smith-Jones to take her out. But by requiring such a large number of signatures, it becomes almost an impossible task.
The legislature needs to look at this code section and modify it appropriately. Personally, I’d like to see the percentage of signatures required cut in half, from 10% to 5%. That should be sufficient to deter those from making knee-jerk reactions to elected’s behavior whileat the same time making the gathering of petitions reasonable.
Considering how few people tend to vote in the election of School Board members, 10% doesn’t sound un-doable. It’s not 10% of the number of people eligible to vote, after all. But only 10% of the number of people who actually DID vote for that position.
How many was that for her election?
Posted by Liz | Thursday, September 8, 2011, 12:01 pmUm, did you read the links?
Because this election took place in conjunction with the 2008 presidential election, over 125,000 votes were cast for this seat. And she ran unopposed! So 10% means in excess of 12,500 signatures. As I point out in my article, four years earlier, when the election took place in May, only 32,000 votes were cast, so only about 3,300 signatures would have been required.
Posted by Vivian J. Paige | Thursday, September 8, 2011, 12:28 pmIs the School Board Member a paid position? Does her lack of attendance affect the out come of thier meeting?
Posted by BTCM | Thursday, September 8, 2011, 1:08 pmUm, yes it is. She’d paid $12,000 a year plus benefits.
Her lack of attendance means those she was elected to represent have no voice. Isn’t that the whole purpose of representative government?
Posted by Vivian J. Paige | Thursday, September 8, 2011, 1:28 pmI agree I was just wondering if the school board could still function! I take it that her pay is guaranteed
Posted by BTCM | Friday, September 9, 2011, 2:22 pm“The legislature needs to look at this code section and modify it appropriately. Personally, I’d like to see the percentage of signatures required cut in half, from 10% to 5%. That should be sufficient to deter those from making knee-jerk reactions to elected’s behavior whileat the same time making the gathering of petitions reasonable.”
I’m not a big fan of recall. How about instead the General Assembly pass a law that local elected officials MUST vacate their seats if they move out of the locality?
Posted by Steve Vaughan | Friday, September 9, 2011, 7:12 pmPretty sure the law already says you have to be a resident. But she’s claiming that she is a resident, and that she hasn’t moved out of the city.
Posted by Vivian J. Paige | Friday, September 9, 2011, 7:52 pm