At its November 18 meeting, the Arlington County Board had a long discussion (see video and highlights, below) on the item, “Establishment of an Advisory Panel to Examine Arlington County’s Form of Government.” In their discussion, the Board members expressed a variety of views, from strongly in favor of moving forward – at least looking at this question – to others who appear to be much more skeptical, if not outright opposed. For instance:
- Maureen Coffey: “I can’t even count the number of times I’ve had these conversations amongst my colleagues that
we need the preliminary step of agreeing on what the heck it is we’re trying to solve here. Because I hear a lot of people say that, you know, we want a more representative government. Well, more representative can mean a lot of different things…I’m very stuck inherently on the fact that the question being asked at the core of this is should we do this or should we not and not why are we trying to do this?…How do we solve that? And then do these proposals solve those problems. There is not a through line that I can see in what is currently being proposed for those things. And I think evaluating choices also means evaluating advantages as well as disadvantages. Every system has trade-offs, right? Everything. There’s no perfect system of governance that perfectly represents everyone’s interests and has the most effective, most engaged, most transparent. Everything is going to have positives and it’s going to have negatives…It’d be a lot easier frankly for me to just shut up and go along with it. But I think it is important to me that we if we do this that we actually do it right and we do it well, because the other thing that I think is like kind of a worst-case scenario is that we do this and we do it subpar, and it then taints the ability to have these conversations in a successful manner going forward. Because I don’t think this is a thing that you get five swings at. I think this is a one-time conversation, once in a century, right? And so if we mess this up, I don’t know where that leaves us with the ability to actually think about governance changes in the future…” - Matt de Ferranti: “If you don’t put something on paper, even if it’s imperfect, then it’s just the broad conversations that we’ve been having for two or three years.” Also interesting: “If we pass this charge, I will not be in support of [Delegate] Patrick Hope’s bill in this legislative session. Sorry, but that’s where I am. That is an attempt to find common ground…As a matter of principle, I do not believe Richmond should be telling us how we’re governed at this local level. However, to try to find consensus, I hope to be one of five board members who say not in 2026 legislative session.” Also: “I for one would not support any county board meetings for the ensuing six months until July because we are going to be absolutely enmeshed in the budget and the capital improvement plan and the commission should be doing the work.” De Ferranti also rejected the argument some folks made, that “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it,” saying that “doesn’t jibe with the testimony I’ve heard tonight.” And, De Ferranti added, “I’m not interested in this so that we come to come to a moderate mushy middle. I’m interested in this to drive change because our government has to respond faster to the pressing issues that led me to office – affordable housing, climate change, equity, inclusive economic growth. We’re moving too slow for the great people that we represent…Delay in perpetuity is just not where I am.”
- J.D. Spain: Argued that “beginning this conversation now in all essence returns power back to Arlingtonians, because for so long…there’s been a lot of folks calling the shots about what what happens in Arlington and what best how our form of government should be…I believe that we can improve. We’re not the same county when there were 29,000 people and folks were probably riding around in horseback with a lantern. I’m just making a joke. We have evolved. And I will…say honestly, we have not evolved with the times. It is easy to stay in the status quo. Change is hard. And I’ve often found that people will quickly rationalize their decisions based on a number of things…I think there’s a lot of room for improvement. So to say no to this is just simply kicking the can down the road. This conversation is long overdue. And you know, you cannot build an equitable future here in Arlington on a structure quite honestly that was intentionally designed to keep people out. Point blank end of story. If you don’t know your history, if you don’t appreciate how we arrived here, then you’re in the dark. And I think there’s going to be some challenges, but I think there’s also a lot that we’re going to learn…it took about 50 some odd years after this jurisdiction was changed from districts to at large for a reason for another minority to get on the board. We’re not doing this exercise simply for demographics…we want to make sure we have equal representation and fair representation across all of Arlington. I’m very open to look at hybrid models. We already have three districts. We could probably align a board member to one of those districts, district one, two, and three where House of Delegates are, and have four people at large and have a seven member board. But I don’t want to get in front of everything. We need to do our homework. We need to do our due diligence. But Arlingtonians deserve the right to direct us to where our future is, not just me or five members on the board. Let’s hear from the committees. Let’s hear from our commissions…There’s a lot of potential here. But if you close off the art of the possible and having conversation because we’re just hellbent on some reason or another, then we’ll never get to our fullest potential in my opinion…this is advisory, this is conversation. Could we be doing a lot more? Are we going to be challenged in the next couple months given all that’s going on in the federal government? And yes, we are. But that doesn’t mean we don’t start shooting for the stars and keep thriving and moving forward. And failure is not an option. We got to push. Because this conversation, as you’ve heard tonight, this did not just happen six months ago…This conversation was going on in 1995 in the early 2000s. And yet nobody did anything about it. Failure. That’s what it was. So, I see nothing wrong with a conversation. I look forward to it…”
- Susan Cunningham: “Just as we need to understand the history of why we have the government we have now, we also need to understand the history of how are we doing on it and does it work for the community. So I mean I think I it’s Al Eisenberg’s old question of, you know, ‘what problem are you trying to solve’? I’m not sure if it’s on his tombstone but I know it was in his obituary…You always start with what’s the problem you’re trying to solve, and then you gather the evidence. I think we have a lot of work still to do on which problem or problems we’re trying to solve and a lot of work to do on solving some of them with the levers that we have now…Vice chair, you said yourself you’ve been too distracted with this to do the manager’s review, to write the budget guidance, to do all of the year-end things that we fundamentally must do today to govern well. So, I’m all for having community conversations. Before we launch into
this one, I think it’s really really important to identify what problem we’re going to solve, whether we can solve it in other ways, and to get on with it. And then what the metrics and outcomes are going to be. I don’t think we’re there yet. I suppose we could get there quickly…So my preference right\ now is we would probably defer this a month or two, see where we are, but I know that’s not likely to be the will of the people. Also…one of the things I hear very loudly throughout the community is that people want to be heard…Al Eisenberg was famous for saying we have to have at least two Republicans on every commission. And I would say two Republicans, two independents, or whatever the mix is, because diverse thought in every deliberation makes us better…Finally, on the the issue of doing our jobs well… throughout the year, it is going to be about caretaking, carrying the torch through a really likely to be challenging and extremely unpredictable time. We cannot take our eye off that ball and our community does not want us to take our eye off that ball. So, I want to stay true to the basics. Make sure we’ve got the budget in in hand. Make sure we’re asking the right questions. Make sure we’re doing our job today and that we’re growing as a board so that we can do a great job in the future…It was a more right time the first time that Patrick Hope put this bill in than it is right now in my opinion…if we’re really going to have equitable engagement, we need to fund it. We need to resource it and we need to make sure that the people who we want to equitably engage are able to engage. Our immigrant population is terrified. Our low-income population and moderate income population and young people are concerned about keeping a roof over their head and having a job. Our federal workers are just heading back to the office and resorting their whole lives again and trying to figure out how to pay bills. It’s not the time for equitable engagement. It will not be easier than it was in the past and it’s really really important to us. So, I’m open to the conversation…not opposed to doing it at some point. Love the intellectual questions of it. But let’s do our job. Let’s meet this moment. And when and if we begin this work, let’s do it
properly.” - Takis Karantonis: “I’m coming from a culture, a political environment…districts equal corruption where I come from…If you go around in Fairfax and Loudoun etc…look how compartmentalized, sometimes very balkanized the government is, how actually fair representation doesn’t happen. What happens is the ossification of fiefdoms in in local places…Of course we did things here. I mean, I take a little bit of an issue that we are slow in doing things…I couldn’t agree more with Miss Coffey on the issue that everything has drawbacks. This is the base of where I come from. And that everything has also political intentionalities that are external to the process and they are always coming in from right and left…We heard a lot about Delegate Hope’s bills…in my community, Delegate Hope doesn’t represent my district but represents a north Arlington district. Fine. But this would be something for all Arlington but I haven’t seen any you know anybody asking uh if you know if this is appropriate…This is a conversation that occurs in communities where a successful government occurs while at the same time systemic let’s call them asymmetries… The best way to balance them politically is to actually have members here in this Board who actually
have to respond to all constituencies. If you ask me which is the most unrepresented community right now, subset of Arlingtonians, these are definitely the [Metro] corridor dwellers…and a fair district would basically render what Ms. Coffey said – direct proportional – and then we would have the other, the political imbalancem where you know the 70% 75% of the land where 25% of the people lives wouldn’t feel represented etc…Now this may be a good idea or something that we may want to contemplate when we talk about the state government…But here in the local level, we have an additional level of responsibility. Every day…when you walk out of your door, 95% of of what you experience in your life is somehow delivered by local governance. Whether it is your streets, your public safety, your school..So when we kick the tires and tinker and look at better solutions, I agree with both my colleagues who say yes we can always better we can always do better, we can think about more efficient forms etc. For me it’s very important that during that time, we maintain the efficiency and the resolve of a government that actually delivers for our residents. When Ms. Cunningham asks what is the problem we want to to solve, the first layer of answer to that is we don’t have something that’s broken. I mean to the email that we all got, ‘if it ain’t broken’. It isn’t broken. It is not broken. Arlington is a very high-functioning effective local government, period and a story. We are technically among the best that you can get. And this is because not because Arlingtonians don’t have the power, Mr. Spain. It’s because Arlingtonians actually have the power and have been
caring to to elect people and to call them accountable all the time. Now…do we have systemic deficits? Do we have systemic racism in Arlington? We have enormous differences in development and socioeconomic status? Yes, we do…And as you know, economic and socioeconomic inequalities are the biggest problem that modern democracies cannot resolve. This is one of the reasons why we are in the predicament we are at right now nationwide. So all of this is to say that I fully agree that it is a good thing to kick the tires and see how we have done for the last 90 something years. I don’t disagree with that. I said many times that I support that. I am very far from supporting specific proposals there, but I am very close to seek a process that will provide a place where we have a decent discussion… But at the same time, I want to safeguard as much as I can the ability of this government to continue to enjoy the trust and the agency that we have, because right now what Arlingtonians don’t need is a government that is occupied with itself and thinking about itself and not delivering every day to the needs of people…growing…more acute every day.”
Former County Board members and others are weighing in, mostly skeptically. Here are a few of their thoughts.
- Former County Board member Libby Garvey says “While I agree that after nearly a century it could be good to evaluate how our government structure is serving us, I have several major concerns…There is the substance of the charge which seems to assume a certain outcome rather than considering various ways to solve a problem, which has not yet been clearly stated…I am most concerned about the timing. Large and important tasks like this can take up a lot of time and focus for everyone…In my view, to undertake a project like restructuring our government now is like deciding to paint the life boats right after the Titanic hit the iceberg. We need to focus on how to help our residents survive the coming economic storm without crippling the County’s finances, not on addressing a problem that is not yet clearly defined.“
- From this ArlNow article, former County Board member Jay Fisette says “The need for this whole effort is questionable, and the timing is even more questionable”; former County Board member and former State Senator Mary Margaret Whipple says ““I guess I come from the school of ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”; former County Board member Mary Hynes “voiced concern that there is not unanimity among the current County Board members on moving forward.” Former Del. Bob Brink says that structural changes “should be examined thoroughly and undertaken cautiously.” And Judy Connally, “a former member of both the School Board and House of Delegates, was among those asking what problem Arlington leaders were attempting to fix.
The public comments were mostly supportive of establishing an advisory panel, although with varying concerns and suggestions for improvements, areas of focus, etc. For instance:
- Beth Grossman argued in support: “If Arlington wants to ensure a diverse and inclusive County Board and one that encourages community engagement, it is essential that we move away from a Board that is elected at-large and with staggered terms…There are a number of potential other ways to organize the County Board and our elections to better foster inclusion and engagement. If an advisory panel is established, I would encourage the panel in particular to carefully look at the possibility of a Board whose members are elected simultaneously and through multi-seat ranked-choice voting. Multi-seat ranked-choice voting allows for a substantial community of interest, even if not an absolute majority, to pull their support for an individual member to be elected to the board…under the multi-seat ranked-choice approach, the majority community would still almost certainly win a majority of seats on the Board, but other communities would be represented as well in rough proportion to their support and they will have an opportunity for their voices to be heard.”
- Allan Gajadhar of the Arlington Civic Federation also argued in support: “Arlington is a basically a well-run county with a growing, denser and more diverse population in an increasingly interrelated metropolitan region. However, improvements can and should be made to achieve better citizen representation and improve government accountability. Our research led us to develop the following problem statements to guide our recommendations. One, Arlington County’s elected boards remain the same size they were in 1930 despite a growing and more dense population, resulting in overworked officials, inadequate representation, and insufficient community engagement. Arlington County’s elected bodies do not adequately reflect the county’s diversity, including but not limited to racial and ethnic diversity, socioeconomic diversity, and viewpoint diversity. As a result, many Arlington residents, particularly those outside the dominant or majority groups, may not feel represented, and the County Board and School Board may not benefit from the full and robust range of perspectives and experiences of Arlington residents. Our electoral system does not ensure proportional representation in Arlington, encourage the most qualified or diverse candidates to run and get elected to office, or provide strong competitive races in general elections.”
- Pamela Berg of the Arlington League of Women Voters was largely supportive: “The League does not have a position on which form of government a locality should adopt, but we do have a strong position at both the state and national levels on how such evaluations should be conducted…The League of Women Voters United States emphasizes transparency, public participation, and open, representative and responsive government. Together, these positions allow us to say the League supports fair, transparent processes that ensure accountability, meaningful public participation, and broad community access and representation. With that in mind, we would like to offer a few observations of the draft charter. One, the time frame is probably too short for the depth of work envisioned. The charter outlines historical and legal review, comparative governance analysis, extensive public engagement, structural assessment, and formulation of recommendations. All of this requires not just listening sessions, but genuine outreach to underrepresented communities, data gathering, and thoughtful analysis. 12 months will likely be too ambitious for work of this scope unless dedicated staff support is provided. If additional time or resources become necessary, we encourage the Board to keep those options open so the quality of the process is not constrained. Consider adding effectiveness as an explicit area of assessment. The four existing assessment areas focus primarily on process, transparency, participation, representation, and responsiveness. These are essential, but we also encourage including language about effectiveness, the quality, timeliness, and clarity of decision making and implementation…Three, provide clarity on how advisory panel members will be selected…Overall, this is a solid and well-constructed foundation for the work ahead. The League looks forward to supporting this process in any way we can and we appreciate the Board’s commitment to thoughtful community centered governance.”
- Kathleen McSweeney of the Arlington NAACP spoke in support of “the County Board’s efforts to convene residents to assess how Arlington County’s form of government can be improved”; “that after 93 years, it is prudent to assess how our form of government can lead to governance that is more effective, responsive, and equitable”; that “the charter must be explicit about the role of equity in guiding the advisory panel’s work”; that the panel should include “representatives from historically marginalized communities”; and that this is “an opportunity to thoughtfully assess the structure of our government and reassess with fresh eyes a system that was originally designed to lock people of color and other groups out of power.”
In contrast:
- Planning Commission member Eric Berkey argued, in contrast, against: “I have significant concerns about what we’re doing…The question is twofold – is this the right vehicle in which to initiate change, and is now the right time to do so? So we know about the austerity Ms. Cunningham was speaking of. Sitting through that last presentation…makes me anxious about the coming year. And it really gives me a lot of pause as to why this Board that I respect a great deal and I think shows a lot of deliberation would spend any ounce of bandwidth in the next year ,especially the next six months, on anything other than confronting these issues. We’ve got uncertain federal funding we’ve got housing insecurity, food insecurity… you know all this…That gives me a lot of concern, and it makes me frankly concerned that the Board is maybe taking its eye off the ball on what really matters. Should we initiate reform? Absolutely. We should be having this conversation. I definitely agree. We don’t have enough good people running for County Board, enough people from diverse backgrounds. But is initiating this committee right now as constituted the best way to go about it? Have we done a community-wide survey? Have we had conversations? Have we done the hard homework that we expect of our normally normal policymaking process before we take action? And I haven’t seen it yet. So I would urge you to defer and really give this more careful thought.”
In the end, the motion (to continue this discussion at the December Board meeting) passed 3-0 with two abstentions (Maureen Coffey and Susan Cunningham). Which simply means that this process will move forward, with lots more discussion, hearings, and work left to do in coming months…
By the way, my view is that we should definitely have this conversation, with the caveat that the County Board focus intensely – as Matt de Ferranti said – for the next six months or so – on the budget, challenges coming from Washington, DC, etc., and that the commission set up to look at this government issue do the work during that time. As for the outcomes, let’s not prejudge them, but instead see what comes out of the process and whether there’s a consensus one way or the other on how/whether to move forward. And yes, I agree that Richmond shouldn’t have so much power over localities, but of course this is a strong “Dillon Rule” state, aka a “mother may I?” state, so unfortunately that’s where we’re at, barring reforms to the “Dillon Rule” (which I’d strongly support, btw)! Also, I definitely want to see *specifics* about how the current system is suboptimal, and *specifically* how proposed new systems would be better. A look at other governance structures historically and in other localities around the country, with a list of pros and cons from each, might be helpful.
So what do you think of all this?
