My latest column, title above, appeared in The Virginian-Pilot Wednesday (and made it to the Whipple Clips this morning – a first 😉 ). I found it interesting that the Governor’s Commission on Government Reform & Restructuring was limited in its ability to review the Dillon Rule. Seems to me that if you are serious about reform and restructuring, everything should be on the table. No wonder the report (pdf) includes so many items previously recommended.
I just want to know which legislator is going to carry the bill that allows localities to make the decision on the color of local public vehicles 😉 .
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
An area where the state could give localities some more authority, cut their own workload and not really do any damage to the (sensible) intent of the Dillon rule:
The City of Williamsburg has a charter change bill in this year. It changes the way council fills vacancies, from an appointment proceess to a special election.
It’s necessary because last year the General Assembly passed a lawy REQUIRING localities to fill such vacancies by special election.
So, essentially city council is asking the General Assembly for permission to do something the legislature told them last year they had to do.
A simple bill saying that localities have the authority to change their charters or ordinances to conform with existing state and federal law would eliminate the need for this bill and many others like it.
That makes sense.
Vivian, I love you, love this forum, but honestly, you’re the only one that see’s a problem with the Dillon Rule. Its worked for over a hundred years!
The “limits” on localities are necessary. It was all outlined by Justice Dillon in his essays on how corrupt local government officials are, and how they act. Are you disputing that? Do you really think local officials are less corrupt, less unruly, than they were 100+ years ago?
I guess I’ll have to get out of my easy chair, and contact my local delegate and senator and tell them, “keep the Dillon Rule, its worked and I don’t trust local politicians”. So I suppose your activism on this issue has had some effect, in that they will hear from someone who see’s the wisdom of the Dillon Rule.
Like I said, Love you, love the blog, really wish you’d find something important to lobby for. Like telling us what the “3rd Crossing” is a 3rd crossing of?
Just because you don’t know of others who are advocating against the Dillon Rule doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. Every time I write about it in the Pilot, my email box is full from those who agree it needs to be scrapped. In fact, outside of the blogosphere, there are very few advocates for keeping it.
But that’s not the point of my article: the point is that the governor specifically limited the committee. If everything isn’t on the table when it comes to reform, then what’s the point of the exercise?