We meant to address this issue several weeks ago, but it’s still relevant, so we want to propose this now: the town of Haw River needs to go back to its original structure that provided for the election of mayor every two years.
What brought this into focus was the recent elevation of mayor pro tem Lee Lovette to serve as mayor, to fill the seat left vacant by the Republican Party’s designation of then-mayor Kelly Allen to fill a vacancy on the board of commissioners.
Lovette’s appointment was initially believed to have been until the next election, this November, until state elections board attorneys discovered that under Haw River’s town charter, there is no “partial term” provision, meaning that Lovette would serve through the 2025 election, all the way until the original expiration of Allen’s term in 2027.
Now, first a caveat. These comments and concerns are in no way a reflection on Lovette. He has been a fine town councilman, and we have every reason to believe he will do an equally fine job as the town’s mayor.
But there are principles that transcend our respect and admiration for him personally.
Our concerns are twofold.
We do not believe anyone, in Haw River or elsewhere, should be allowed to serve in any appointed electoral office beyond the next election without being on the ballot. Voters should always have the right to decide as soon as possible whether an appointee should remain in a given seat, in this case as mayor.
At a minimum, Haw River’s current town council, should change its charter to ensure that the mayor’s seat, now occupied by Lovette, will be on the November 2025 ballot for the remainder of Allen’s term, through November 2027.
But more fundamentally, the town council needs to change, back, to its original structure that allowed Haw River voters to choose two council members and the mayor at each election.
In other words, the mayor’s term should be reduced from its current, four-year length back to its original configuration, of being for a two-year term.
That’s the general setup for most municipalities that have five members and where the mayor votes as a member of the council.
Locally, for instance, that’s the structure in both Burlington and Graham, as well.
Every election, the mayor and two city council seats are on the ballot.
The principle is that voters should retain the right to change a majority of the council at any municipal election.
As a practical matter, they have rarely exercised such wholesale changes – neither in Haw River, nor most other towns and cities that have the same municipal structure.
But they deserve to have it.
That was also the historic method in Haw River until 2010, when the council, at the behest of then-mayor Buddy Boggs, agreed to change the town’s charter and lengthened the mayor’s future term to four years, rather than two.
We said then, and we believe now, that voters’ opinions and rights should be the foremost consideration, not the convenience or pleasure of the mayor – then, now, or in the future.
Now, it’s true that there are longer mayoral terms locally – in Elon, Gibsonville, and Mebane, each of whom has a four-year term.
But, an important distinction: mayors in those jurisdictions do not have a right to vote on their council’s agenda items – with the singular exception of breaking a tie. With an odd-numbered configuration of council seats (5), that occasion arises very rarely.
Even in Elon, Mebane, and Gibsonville, voters can change most members, if they should choose to do so, every two years. In those municipalities, there are five board members plus a mayor – meaning voters decide on three members every election: two councilmen (or aldermen in Gibsonville) and the mayor some years, and three councilmen (or aldermen) two years later.
We are usually for the shortest length of terms for most politicians, believing as we do, that the maximum power should be vested in the people who elect, not those whom they elect.
In pre-Revolutionary days – and even early in U.S. history, as best we understand – most legislators, at all levels of service (state and local), had one-year terms.
In that method, voters could change the entire legislature (or town council) in one fell swoop, if they so desired – which they occasionally did.
We’re always for allowing greater authority and sovereignty for voters – and less convenience and privilege for politicians.
We believe Haw River’s town council should take advantage of the current circumstances to change their town’s charter, with respect to mayoral elections, back to a structure more responsive to their town’s voters.
