More From The Ivory Tower...

Here's my second crack at editorial writing, if you're interested. If you're not, I don't blame you!

Representation – it’s what Colonial Americans fought and died for more than 200 years ago. Now, Oxford resident Jerry Sparks and his supporters are pushing papers in hopes of winning the same.

Sparks placed an advertisement in The Star last week urging fellow Oxford residents to sign a petition to divide the city into districts for municipal elections. Since October, he has been adamant city officials should live in all areas of the city so they can better represent all constituents.

The Oxford City Council was quick to write Sparks off as nothing more than a citizen disgruntled, because his June 2007 rezoning request was denied. (Sparks sought to rezone his 45-acre residential property to commercial, and he launched a lawsuit against the city when his request was denied, the result of which is still pending.)

Whether Sparks is munching on sour grapes is inconsequential. His argument to separate the city into districts is valid, and should be given the consideration it deserves.

Three of the city’s five council members – Steven Waits, Mike Henderson and Greg Thrower – live in the Friendship neighborhood, near the county line in southeast Oxford. Although their proximity to one another has not presented a problem yet – the council recently voted to divert funding from Friendship Road to a U.S. 78 road project – there is no telling when it might.

Separating the council members may do little more than quash the appearance of bias, but peace of mind is a valuable commodity the council should strive to provide. The at-large system Oxford employs has its advantages. Councilwoman June Land Reaves said her biggest motivation to keep the system is residents feel like they have five representatives they can call on instead of one.

But, as Anniston City Councilman Ben Little said in a recent article in The Star, the districting system has helped Anniston establish a clear chain of command, from resident to councilman to mayor, that residents find useful. Little also said residents feel comfortable with one councilman on their side fighting for issues that effect them equally.

The best argument used by supporters of the at-large system is quality. Voting by district does not always guarantee the best candidates will be elected. It is very possible two opponents in one district may have more to offer than the leading candidate in another district.

It’s a risk worth taking.

Election by ward eliminates competition between council members during the election process. Instead of fighting among each other and spending precious meeting time after the election repairing rifts, council candidates only compete against an opponent with whom they will not have to spar in the council chambers.

Imagine council members actually being productive and cordial during an election season. What a concept.

But the best reason to divide Oxford into wards is this: accountability. Wards are much easier to manage and simpler for citizens to digest.

A citizen is more likely to monitor one candidate’s voting record than five. Lessening residents’ burdens would lead to heightened accountability, eliminating an incumbent’s natural advantage during an election.

Simply put, council members would have to keep their promises or pack their bags.

Sparks’ vendetta against city officials has been well documented in The Star, and it is clear he has a poor relationship with council members. But his involvement in this movement should not taint the overall message.

If it garners enough citizen support, the council should seriously consider Sparks’ petition. The implementation of a ward system could mean the ousting of at least two of the three councilmen from Friendship.

Let’s let their records do the talking in November, and may the best representative win.

I know... Riveting stuff, huh?