Arlington’s current system of government has “served us well,” but might be in line for an update, one expert believes.
John Milliken — who served on the County Board in the 1980s until he was tapped to be Virginia’s secretary of transportation — opined on the topic of Arlington governance changes at the annual meeting of the Inter-Service Club Council (ISCC) of Arlington last week.
His stance on the current system of five Board members serving staggered terms, with a rotating chair’s position, dovetails in principle with the position of the Arlington County Civic Federation. For several years, that organization has been advocating for a host of changes to the governance structure, which has been in place since 1932.
But Milliken, a senior fellow in residence at the Schar School of Policy and Government and George Mason University, is not ready to jump on the bandwagon quite yet.
“I’ve not come any final conclusion” about the need for changes and what they might be, the retired attorney said. “There’s no right or wrong answers. They need to be thought through.”
The package of changes proposed by the Civic Federation includes increasing Board seats from the current five to seven, allowing board members to serve as chair for two or four years rather than the current annual rotation, and moving away from an election cycle that sees at least one Board seat on the ballot each November.
On the last point, Milliken dissents from the Civic Federation’s proposal. He said that having a seat or two up for grabs each November keeps all elected officials more in touch with the views of the electorate.
Milliken contrasted Arlington with Fairfax and Loudoun counties, where Board of Supervisors members are elected all at one time in four-year batches.
The result in those communities, he said, has been wild swings in public policy as, for instance, pro-growth elected officials are tossed out by voters for slow-growth proponents, or vice-versa.
Arlington’s setup, with fewer than half the board seats on the ballot at any given time, provides more continuity, advocates contend. Critics counter that the system makes it almost impossible for a dissatisfied electorate to make substantive changes in policy or personnel.
Among those listening carefully at the luncheon was County Board member Matt de Ferranti. He and his four Board colleagues next year will have to decide whether to move forward on a governance-change discussion — and if so, how.
Milliken “offered a thoughtful framework for considering our form of government and how we can best serve our residents,” de Ferranti told ARLnow. “I am looking forward to having this conversation in the future, and to hearing more from our community.”
Board members would be wise to listen to those who have come before, another county leader in attendance said.
That individual, who has known Milliken for decades, privately told ARLnow that Milliken “may be the most influential, knowledgeable” of Arlington political leaders over all those years.
Sandy Bushue, who heads the ISCC, called Milliken’s remarks “substantive and thought-provoking.”
The speech “was very powerful and is the catalyst to start the discussion,” Bushue said. “Not only did Mr. Milliken have suggestions, but he followed it with reasons and justifications.”
As to whether changes will come about, when, and in what form? The keynote speaker wasn’t placing any bets.
“This is Arlington — we don’t do anything like this quickly,” he said with a chuckle.
De Ferranti, too, said it was too early to lay out any timetable for how a community discussion would play out.
“Currently, we need to think very carefully about the best timing for this conversation in light of local budget considerations and the changing landscape resulting from the presidential transition,” he said.
Del. Patrick Hope (D-Arlington) in the 2024 General Assembly session introduced legislation that would have given Arlington officials authority to make governance changes. But after local leaders said the measure was premature, the bill went into limbo in Richmond.
Hope’s 2024 measure was procedurally killed off by legislators last week, so he and other legislators would need to start over if they want to revisit the matter in 2025. It’s possible any request of the General Assembly would wait until after a community-engagement process plays itself out.
