The process by which Beckley municipal officials are elected has been a much-discussed issue in recent weeks.
After weighing the discussion, we believe two things need to happen.
One, as we have stated previously, the city needs to scrap its partisan primaries and go to a single, nonpartisan election.
Two, the city’s election cycle needs to be changed so that it corresponds with presidential year elections or, at the very least, midterm elections.
On the first point, there is not enough of a two-party system in Beckley, at least when it comes to candidates interested in elected positions, to warrant a partisan primary and general election system. As a result, voter interest, as in turnout, has been very low, and the costs of having two elections in the span of a couple of months no longer can be justified.
On the second point, costs would be further reduced by including the municipal election with county, state and federal balloting. Think of it as selecting municipal officials the same way nonpartisan school board candidates are elected during the statewide primaries in May.
On both points, we believe voter interest would grow, which has been the focal point of this whole discussion.
Changing the process, however, is not as easy as snapping your finger. City voters would have to approve the changes, and local officials have been working with the secretary of state’s office in Charleston in an effort to move the process forward.
The problem is that Beckley’s next municipal election is scheduled for 2011, while the next presidential election will be in 2012.
So do you extend the current terms of the mayor and council members by a year, having them expire in 2012, or do you have mayoral and council candidates run in 2011 for five-year terms, expiring in 2016?
“The bottom line is: How do we get there?” Mayor Emmett Pugh said.
Ideally, we would like to see the changes made so that the next municipal election in Beckley comes in 2012, and that can be done if a special election is held this summer for city voters to decide on the changes.
Keeping the existing process in place for 2011 with an eye on 2016, we feel, will only add to costs and voter apathy.
“We want to make sure that if we do this that it’s done right,” Pugh said.
Meanwhile, time is of the essence. We encourage city officials to stay on top of this issue and work as quickly as possible to implement these important changes.






