« "Drive Thru" | Main | Ka-boom! »
May 25, 2005
Trading A Legal Reason for an Illegal One?
The chairman of the Chatham County Board of Commissioners will not reappoint a planning board member who often voted against major subdivisions, including [a new proposed] 2,400 home [subdivision].In Chatham County, members of the Planning Board are appointed by the elected members of the County Commission.Caroline Siverson's three-year term expires June 30. It was her first term, and members can serve two terms successively.
But commissioners Chairman Bunkey Morgan said he plans to replace Siverson with a black man to increase the board's racial diversity.
Morgan denied he was replacing Siverson because of how she voted.
So in this case, the chairman of the commission is declining to reappoint a member of the planning board not because he disagrees with how she has voted, but because he wants to replace her with a black man.
I would imagine that unless local law forbids it, a commissioner would be well within his rights to replace a planning board member due to disagreement with her position on planning matters.
But I can't imagine that it's permissible for a commissioner to replace a planning board member simply because of her race. Or to commit at the outset of the search for a replacement that he is seeking a candidate of a particular race.
The ordinance creating the planning board does say that "[a]ppointments shall be made in such a manner that Planning Board members shall represent insofar as practical, the geographical, socioeconomic, sexual and racial makeup of the county."
I appreciate the wisdom of racial and other sorts of balance on local government boards. I doubt seriously, though, that the county's interest in racial balance on its planning board would be strong enough to support a commissioner's commitment from the get-go to decline to reappoint a member on account of her race and to appoint someone of a specific race and gender.
Posted by Eric at May 25, 2005 10:58 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.isthatlegal.org/cgi-bin/mt33/mt-tb.cgi/186.
Comments
Ah,the eternal American question: how to achieve minority rights in a democracy. This question fuels the debate in Durham right now over how to elect their school board, which is one of the most contentious in the country.
Durham has one at-large rep and the other six are elected by racially defined districts. There is a current proposal to have all the board be at-large so that all board members would have a responsibility toward all of Durham. This idea is opposed by liberal groups because they fear that the board would become again all or mostly white.
But, the kicker is: Durham is a town that has more African Americans than whites. And it is a town with a very vibrant black political community--the mayor is black as is their state representative.
The debate goes on and I still don't have an answer.
Posted by: Dabney at May 25, 2005 8:30 PM
I for one welcome that kind of forthright plan for racial balancing. It is less noxious and hypocritical than most diversity plans, in which the obvious goal is meticulous racial balancing, but everybody lies and hedges and squirms uncomfortably about the goals and methods for achieving it. If it's a good thing to use preferences to achieve racial balance, why should Bunkey have to lie about it? Why not just come out and say it?
Posted by: Al Maviva at May 25, 2005 11:00 PM