The Smithfield Times will be taking a different approach to Smithfield Town Council candidate questionnaires this year. Rather than sending a list of questions and publishing all questions and responses in the same print edition and online, the Times will send the candidates a single question once per week.

There will be 12 questions in total, with up to 250 words to respond to each, through Oct. 23. For the eighth week, we asked, “Should the mayor be directly elected by the people? Why or why not?”

• Seventh week, Sept. 18: Should the Town Council accept and match Joseph Luter III’s $6 million gift to the town and agree to meet its conditions? Why or why not?
• Sixth week, Sept. 11: How big of a priority should the town make completing its 1-mile share of the Park-to-Park bicycle and pedestrian trail proposed to extend from Nike Park to Windsor Castle Park?
• Fifth week, Sept. 4: What criteria will you use when deciding whether to approve future residential development?
• Fourth week, Aug. 28: What, if anything, can the Town Council do to be more transparent with citizens?
• Third week, Aug. 21: Should Smithfield move its farmers market to the Grange at 10Main? Why or why not?
• Second week, Aug. 14: What is one challenge or opportunity for the town that has not received enough attention? Why is it important?
• First week, Aug. 7: What will be your top priority if elected?

 

---

Mary Ellen Bebermeyer

No, the mayor should not be directly elected by the people. In a small town like Smithfield, it would only add an extra layer of bureaucracy and expense that we certainly do not need.  An elected mayor would have separate staff and support personnel which is unnecessary because we already have a Town Manager and employees who manage the day-to-day operations of the town at the direction of the Town Council.

Citizens are better represented by multiple council members advocating on their behalf rather than one person elected as mayor working with a council.

 

 

---

Jim Collins

After receiving this question, I began to dig in and research this by reading many governmental documents, point papers, newspaper articles, and editorials from around the Commonwealth on this topic.  Many points were made, but there were two consistent ones discussed.  The first was that if a Town’s current charter has the mayor selected by other elected council members, and it is not causing any problems, why change the charter?  The other point was that the mayor is the face of the community and represents all citizens every day and therefore should be elected directly by the citizens.  I currently agree with both points and can see no clear decision factor on which is better or worse for a town.  I would prefer to discuss this further and hear directly from the citizens in Smithfield as to a preference, if there is one.  Then maybe after learning more on this topic, I can understand if one option is better than the other.

 

---

Darren Cutler

I like the current process sheerly from a talent management perspective.  Since there are generally few candidates, citizens choose and elect their Council Members from the full talent pool.  If multiple candidates ran for Mayor only, losing candidates would not make it to Council, potentially missing out on talented members getting elected to Council in the event the best qualified individuals were running for Mayor.  The current election is unique with an abundance of candidates because citizens are stepping up to run in an effort to change the Town Council culture of uncontrolled growth and anti-transparency of the incumbents to one of managed growth, citizen involvement, and pro-transparency.

The appointment process also removes the “popularity contest” for a single seat head of government and allows the Council to choose who leads them and is the face of the town from the group of individuals duly elected.  In Smithfield’s system of government, where the Mayor is largely a ceremonial title beyond running Council meetings, I think our process is sound.  If it were a system in which the Mayor had veto power, day to day town management, and hiring/firing responsibilities, I think a citizen elected Mayor would be of better service to the people.

All that said, if citizens want to elect the Mayor and I am elected to Council I would certainly support having a public hearing about it.  I genuinely believe listening to our citizens is the greatest responsibility of an elected official when making decisions for Smithfield.

 

 

---

Raynard Gibbs

The question of whether mayors should be elected or appointed is crucial, as they hold pivotal roles in shaping a city’s direction, overseeing operations, and representing the community. Regardless of whether they are elected directly by voters or appointed by the town council, mayors play a key role in addressing the needs and concerns of their constituents. Local governance significantly impacts citizens’ daily lives, and mayors are essential in ensuring the provision of high-quality public goods. Their effectiveness often depends on the electoral system that empowers them and holds them accountable, especially during reelection. Current Mayor Steve Bowman stated during a candidate forum that he believes mayors should be elected, not appointed. I share this view; elected mayors make decisions that directly affect our daily lives, making our votes a powerful tool for community influence.

 

---

William Harris

Smithfield’s form of municipal governance is the Council-Manager model. Here citizens elect a council to make policy and set a budget. The mayor is then “chosen by the council from its membership and shall act as the presiding officer of the council” (Town Charter, pt. 1 Sect. 26). The mayor serves as chief executive officer and the public face of council policy. The council then appoints a town manager to implement council policy and oversee the day-to-day operation of town government.

Our system has a lot going for it. Importantly, it inherently limits the power of a single individual. Popularly elected mayors often have the ability to act in a unilateral fashion, but in our system, the mayor’s voice at council has exactly the same weight as every other voice, thus encouraging consensus in decision making. When citizens become dissatisfied with a popularly elected sitting mayor, they typically have to wait until the end of term to make a change. Our system allows for the changing of the mayor every two years. And in our current system, citizens actually are involved in electing the mayor. When council elects the mayor, they choose an individual who already has been elected directly by the people to sit on the council. I believe this system can continue to work well for Smithfield but would welcome hearing the opinion of citizens who feel having a mayor elected directly by the people would be a better way for us to go.

 

---

Michael G. Smith

Our current process for selecting the Mayor of Smithfield lies in the hands of the seven town council members. Every election cycle, a new Mayor is voted into office by the council members. The citizens have minimal input on the position, other than to express their desire to council members. This gives council the ability to dictate who is best suited for the job. If we change the process and allow citizens to elect the Mayor, we would be following the will of the people, but risk losing a valuable member of council. If someone interested in the mayoral positions runs and loses, they would not be offered a seat on council. That is a risk that a committed candidate should be willing to take. Citizens have made their voices heard; they want a change. If a candidate is committed to run for Mayor, and is willing to make risk their seat on council, and they have the confidence they can make a successful bid, I think we should support that. The citizens have been left out of this decision process far too long. Change is coming and involving our citizens in the governance of our town is critical to our continued success. I support a change in policy and support a change to allow the citizens to elect the Mayor of Smithfield.