Upholding the process is how the City Council strengthens public trust

A group of Ashland residents led by George Kramer is circulating a petition to put a measure on the ballot in 2026 that proposes to change the Ashland City Charter to require that any new tax or utility fee be subject to voter approval. The proposal will qualify for the ballot if enough valid voter signatures are submitted. The City Council could waive that requirement if it voted to advance the proposal to the ballot. Here, Councilor Jeff Dahle makes the case that petitioners should complete the process of collecting signatures to put the issue on the ballot. In an opposing Pros & Cons column, Councilor Dylan Bloom argues that councilors should advance the proposal to the ballot — and then make the case against its passage.

By Councilor Jeff Dahle

Next November, as a result of a citizen-led petition, Ashland voters may decide whether any new or increased utility fees should require voter approval.

While I respect the intent behind that proposal, I do not support the petitioner’s request of the City Council to mandate that it be placed on the ballot without requiring the petitioner to follow the same established process that applies to all initiatives.

I deeply appreciate the commitment and passion of community members who want to see this issue discussed and decided by voters. Civic participation is the foundation of a healthy democracy, and those efforts absolutely deserve our respect. However, while I share the goal of restoring public trust, I respectfully disagree that bypassing the established initiative process is the right way to do it.

The process by which a measure reaches the ballot is not a formality. It is a vital safeguard that ensures fairness, transparency and confidence in the outcome. The requirement that Ashland residents gather signatures is not intended to discourage participation. In fact, it is just the opposite. It is designed to confirm genuine, broad-based community support before a proposal is placed before all Ashland voters. This is not a bureaucratic obstacle. It is democracy in action.

When the Ashland City Council itself places an initiative directly on the ballot at the request of outside petitioners, it bypasses this safeguard. Even with good intentions, doing so risks undermining the very public confidence we are trying to restore. It creates the appearance that some issues can receive preferential treatment and that the rules can change depending on who makes the request, or that political convenience can substitute for community consensus. Over time, that erodes fairness, transparency and consistency.

It’s important to acknowledge that the initiative process was never meant to be a barrier to participation in civic life. It was designed to ensure that proposals reflect more than the views of a few advocates. The requirement to organize, communicate and gather signatures invites public discussion and education within our community. It allows Ashland residents to hear one another, refine their ideas and demonstrate that a meaningful cross-section of the community supports advancing the question to a citywide vote.

I have little doubt that the petitioners will obtain the required signatures, if not many more. That, in and of itself, is an important signal to the community with respect to measuring importance, and citizens should not be deprived of this critical data necessary to make an informed decision. Furthermore, I reject the notion and the associated logic that the mere expectation of obtaining signatures eliminates the responsibility to actively secure them.

Upholding that process honors both the spirit of participation and the integrity of Ashland’s local democratic framework. It also protects the council itself. Once it sets the precedent that any issue can be referred directly to the ballot because it is popular or contentious, it opens the door to future pressure to do the same for other causes. Over time, that can make local governance less transparent and more reactive to whoever can exert the most political momentum at a given moment.

Some have correctly argued that council referral is a legitimate tool within its authority. The Ashland City Council does have the legal right to refer measures directly to voters. However, it should not hide behind that authority or use it as a political convenience. There is an important distinction between a council strategically referring its own policy question for public consideration and the council using that same tool to advance an outside citizen request that has not yet demonstrated broad support.

The first is a legitimate exercise of representative judgment in that the council is using its policymaking discretion to test public sentiment or seek voter endorsement on an issue within its purview. The second is a shortcut around the established democratic process, and one that shifts the burden of political responsibility away from where it belongs. If the council chooses to refer a measure of its own initiative, it is accountable to the voters for that choice. But when it advances another party’s proposal without the required signatures, it risks conflating advocacy with governance and diminishes the process designed to separate the two.

I also want to be clear that my position on this process and the council’s decision is in no way coupled to my personal support for or opposition to the underlying issue itself. It would be a mistake to assume otherwise. My focus here is on process integrity and not on the merits of the measure. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the proposal’s substance should not determine whether we uphold the principles that guide how it reaches the ballot.

True transparency does not mean bending the rules in the name of expedience. It means applying them consistently, even when doing so requires patience and effort. Upholding the initiative process affirms our community’s values of openness, participation and equal access. It ensures that the council governs by example by showing that fairness is not situational and that process integrity matters as much as policy outcomes.

Public trust cannot be rebuilt by adjusting the rules to fit the moment. It is rebuilt through consistency, transparency and respect for the processes that make participation meaningful. That is the standard we owe to the people of Ashland and to the future City Councils that will follow our example.

Contact Councilor Jeff Dahle at [email protected]. Email letters to the editor and Viewpoint submissions to [email protected].