Consideration would allow mayor to vote only in the event of tie among other four council members
A proposal to strip Graham’s mayor of her vote in most circumstances is scheduled to come up for consideration when the council convenes its next monthly meeting on Tuesday.
Among the items on Tuesday’s agenda is a proposed ordinance that, if approved, would limit the voting authority of Graham’s mayor Chelsea Dickey to that of a tiebreaker in cases when the council’s four regular members arrive at a deadlock.
At the moment, Dickey is empowered by Graham’s city charter to vote on all items that come before the council. The only check on this authority is a charter provision which states that the mayor can’t cast a tie-breaking vote if he or she also took part in the original decision.
This relatively broad power to weigh in on the council’s decisions was challenged last month by council member Bonnie Whitaker, who has often found herself at odds with Dickey since the latter’s election as mayor in 2025. Whitaker told the rest of the council that she believes the city’s charter is “incorrect” in imparting full voting authority to the mayor, adding that “20 of the 25” communities she has consulted restrict their mayors to the role of a tiebreaker.
Whitaker offered several examples of municipalities where she said the mayor serves solely as tiebreaker. Among the local communities she cited were Elon, Gibsonville, and Mebane. Whitaker neglected to mention that each of these three municipalities has five regular council members or aldermen who sit on the dais. Other communities, like Burlington and Haw River, share Graham’s composition of four regular council members and a mayor who votes on all items.
Whitaker informed her colleagues that her own inquiries suggest the council has the legal wherewithal to adjust the powers of the mayor as they appear in the charter. A more nuanced position was recently enunciated by North Carolina’s Institute of Government, which observed that the General Assembly technically retains the authority to modify municipal charters, although it allows local officials to make changes in nine categories, including the style of the governing board.
A staff report that appears in Tuesday’s agenda packet spells out two different ways that the council could tweak the charter to limit the mayor’s voting authority.
This report, which comes from Graham’s city manager and the two city attorneys, notes that the council could simply approve an ordinance that amends the charter directly.
The council could also make the implementation of this ordinance contingent on a vote by the public. If the council chooses this option, a special election would take place at least 70 days after the council adopts the ordinance.
The staff report goes on to suggest that the council direct staff on its preferred option for amending the charter. In the event that its members select the first, more direct, pathway, the city would need to conduct a public hearing on the proposed change, which could take place as early as September 8.
City staff have also supplied the council with a prospective “resolution of intent” to amend Graham’s city charter. This resolution would adjust the text of the charter clarify that “the mayor shall have the right to vote only when there are equal numbers in the affirmative and in the negative.” The resolution also proposes October 13, 2026 as a potential date for the amendment’s adoption.
