City residents likely can rest assured that the Fayetteville City Council will not amend the city charter to change its two-year terms to four-year terms on Monday night.
Not if council members Kathy Keefe Jensen, Mario Benavente, Deno Hondros and Johnny Dawkins have anything to do with the decision brought about on March 3 by freshman City Council member Derrick Thompson.
“The voters spoke five years ago,” says Jensen, 57, a five-term councilwoman from District 1 in north Fayetteville, referencing a 2018 referendum when the proposal was defeated by 65% of city residents. “I do not support four-year, staggered terms. Residents do not want four-year terms, and if we vote on it, we should bring it to a referendum to let the residents decide.”
Jensen has council company.
“The speakers at the public hearing on April 10 confirmed what I already believed,” says Benavente, 33, a first-term councilman representing District 3, referring to a public hearing in which city residents resoundingly told the council it was not a decision for elected officials to make. “Our citizens are absolutely informed about the city, and they do have a clue about how crucial it is that they remain vigilant about City Council. Moreover, the vast majority will be happy to vote against extending council member terms.
“Acting unilaterally was never on the table for me. While taking no action at all is a welcome outcome, I support putting the issue to a ballot referendum,” Benavente says. “Passing a ‘resolution of intent’ to amend the city charter is not a frivolous matter, and I feel those who were adamant about extending terms don’t get to suddenly sweep this under the rug. You don’t play games on City Council just to see what you can get away with. We ought to see this process through to the end.”
Benavente has council company, too.
“While I did support holding a public hearing, I never supported the council unilaterally moving toward four-year terms, staggered or not, without a referendum,” says Deno Hondros, 46, also a freshman councilman and from District 9. “Last year while on the campaign trail, in addition to my platform initiatives of public safety, workforce housing, infrastructure, and transparency and accountability, I also campaigned on wanting to be ‘the voice of the people.’ While I would have preferred the resolution, we were to hold the public hearing on what would have been to move forward with a ballot referendum for four-year, staggered terms, it was not my request. So, while I did support a public hearing on the subject, I never could see a scenario where I could see myself supporting this initiative without a ballot referendum.”
Hondros, like Benavente, says the April 10 public hearing confirmed what he expected from city residents.
“That speakers against versus for would be approximately 10 to 1,” Hondros says. “I do not envision many, if any scenarios, where I do not support a public hearing. And when it comes to restructuring council and/or lengthening the terms of council, I shall always support a ballot referendum, as I believe in the people’s right to vote, and that the vote of the people is the penultimate voice of ‘the people.’”
Jensen, Benavente and Hondros have council company in Dawkins, the mayor pro tem, who has said that while he voted for the public hearing, he clearly will not support four-year, staggered terms.
“Two-year terms give the people the best, most frequent opportunity to determine who they want representing them,” Dawkins told CityView Media on April 4.
He reiterated those words last week.
“Citizens don’t want four-year terms,” says Dawkins, 64, who is serving his fourth two-year term. “Council should let the issue end.”
Derrick Thompson says four-year, staggered terms will be cost saving for the city with fewer elections and allow council members more time to provide stability for long-term and strategic municipal projects.
“Everybody on council knows four-year, staggered terms is the way to go,” Thompson said at the March 3 council work session.
As for a referendum, the 62-year-old councilman told Benavente there is no need “because we don’t have to” by state statute, and on that point Thompson was correct. Smug, the councilman was, but correct.
Voices of the people
Thompson’s motion for a public hearing to give city residents an opportunity to weigh in backfired when more than 30 residents filled the City Hall council chamber on April 10 to give Thompson and the council an earful of opposition to four years for council members.
“It is very clearly a power grab,” Bobbie Burgess said, “and everybody in this room can see it.”
Without question, Alex Rodriguez would echo Burgess’ words.
“This comes off as a power grab … simple greedy politicians who want to extend their stay without going through the public and campaigning to the people why you should keep your job every two years,” said Rodriguez, who failed in his bid last year to unseat Jensen for the District 1 seat.
Former City Council members Yvonne Kinston, Charles Evans and Juanita Gonzales came to oppose four-year, staggered terms.
“Please don’t take it upon yourself to make that decision for us,” Evans said. “Please put that on the ballot.”
Concern yourselves with the people you serve, Gonzales told the council, and not yourselves.
Antonio Jones, another former city councilman who represented District 3, opposed four-year, staggered terms in an email to the council.
“To boldly declare that as a body you have a right to do something simply because you can is inconceivable for public servants,” Jones wrote, “and sends a very strong message to the general public, whether that was the intent or not.”
Council options
The council is scheduled to meet at 7 p.m. Monday in City Hall, where it will discuss and potentially decide how to proceed with Thompson’s proposal.
City Attorney Karen McDonald told the council on April 10 that it can vote to change the city charter from two-year terms to four-year, staggered terms or vote to send the proposal to a ballot referendum in November, contingent upon 5,000 city resident signatures.
Or, McDonald said, a third option is to do nothing at all.
Hence, Monday night could come down to a decision of six council votes to change the city’s charter from two-year terms to four-year, staggered terms beginning with the ensuing City Council elections.
It will take six votes. Five votes are needed to end the proposal.
While Jensen, Benavente, Hondros and Dawkins say they will not support four-year, staggered terms, Councilwoman Shakeyla Ingram did not respond to a CityView request for her position pro or con or to say what she learned from the April 10 public hearing.
We don’t know the positions pro or con of council members D.J. Haire, Brenda McNair, Courtney Banks-McLaughlin or Mayor Mitch Colvin. Haire, an 11-term councilman, is known for listening to his District 4 constituents. McNair has said she wants to hear from her constituents. We can assume Thompson, if he ignores the public hearing and city residents, could vote for four-year, staggered terms.
As for Banks-McLaughlin and the mayor, perhaps we’ll find out Monday where they stand.
What some of us do know is that a prudent decision-maker, with rare exception, likely will be re-elected to a two-year term after a two-year term after a two-year term. What some of us do know is that a City Council seat is not a license in perpetuity but a responsibility to govern given by city residents. What some of us do know is that a referendum for four-year, staggered terms failed in 2018. And what some us do know is that should these nine council members and this mayor vote for four-year terms on Monday evening, all could find themselves as footnotes in City Council history because they put themselves first and city residents second.
Epilogue
There’s a simple answer here, and it comes from Cynthia Leeks, the respected president of the Seabrook-Broadell Community Watch.
“Let’s slow down,” Leeks said at the public hearing, and turn our attention to more important city matters. “God bless you, but let this one go.”
Bill Kirby Jr. can be reached at billkirby49@gmail.com or 910-624-1961.