Assembly: non-residents won’t get community council voting rights

PALMER — The Mat-Su Borough Assembly declined Tuesday to allow community councils to extend voting rights to non-residents.

The ordinance in question, sponsored by borough mayor Larry DeVilbiss, would have allowed community councils to extend voting rights to non-residents who own property within the boundaries of community councils. There also were provisions for corporate owners being given a vote. The measure would have been voluntary — councils that didn’t want to make the change wouldn’t have to.

A lot of arguments were made at Tuesday’s meeting, but quite a few boiled down to the phrase: “one man, one vote.”

“This legislation is faulty, period,” said assemblyman Vern Halter. “I just don’t’ think people of reasonable intelligence should dilute one person one vote in this country.”

That “one man one vote” argument postulates that someone who owns multiple parcels in multiple community council areas could vote in all of those councils. Jim Sykes with the Lazy Mountain Community Council said that flies in the face of a long tradition of American democracy.

“You get one vote in one place. You can pretty much decide where that place is but you only get one,” Sykes said.

Krista Maciolek with the Moose Creek/Soapstone Community Council agreed the ordinance was a bad idea.

“It’s setting up a class system where the more wealth and the more land you have, the more votes you have,” she said.

But Assemblyman Steve Colligan who, along with Noel Woods, was one of two votes in favor of the ordinance said some community councils were opposed and some in favor. But it didn’t seem to him like those in favor had anything nefarious in mind.

“Those that are in favor of it are having trouble getting quorums,” Colligan said.

A quorum is the minimum number of people necessary to hold a meeting. Expanded membership, Colligan said, might mean more people attending meetings.

DeVilbiss, for his part, said that two community councils already allow non-residents to vote. If the assembly chose to vote down his ordinance, that move would essentially tell those councils that they were no longer eligible for borough certification and the borough assistance that brings.

“We’re telling (Knik-Fairview Community Council and South Knik River Community Council) that they’re either going to change their bylaws or be de-certified,” DeVilbiss said.

That argument swayed Woods, who had previously been opposed to the change.

“That puts, for me, a new light on it,” Woods said. “Why are we bothering them?”

Assemblyman Warren Keogh tallied up the testimony the assembly received. By his count, 18 people testified, 14 in opposition. Thirteen of those people were from councils in his district.

Keogh said that though many councils in his district penned resolutions and letters supporting the change, having attended numerous community council meetings on the topic and gathered as much information as he could, he couldn’t support it.

“I think this was well-intentioned but I think it causes more potential problems than good,” he said.

As for the rest of the assembly — Jim Colver said that he couldn’t support it because his community councils didn’t.

Ron Arvin said he worried about undue outside influence and said he’s in favor of property rights but that doesn’t mean extending votes to people who don’t live in a community.

Darcie Salmon said he just didn’t think it made any sense.

“A chunk of dirt cannot be a part of a community. It cannot think, it cannot act,” he said. “The community is the people, by definition, that live in the area.”

Contact reporter Andrew Wellner at andrew.wellner@frontiersman.com or 352-2270.

Should community councils in the Mat-Su Borough be allowed to extend voting rights to property owners who don’t live in the council area?

Ron Arvin: No

Steve Colligan: Yes

Jim Colver: No

Vern Halter: No

Warren Keogh: No

Darcie Salmon: No

Noel Woods: Yes