Added powers could make mayoral job more attractive

June 08, 2009 11:35 am

— Fourteen people and a lottery ball may have determined who will be the next mayor of Selinsgrove, a community of 5,300 people.
With no one on the ballot in the Republican Party primary, the two men who have held the office of Selinsgrove mayor for the last 16 years both sought and received the same number of write-in votes, forcing Snyder county officials to hold a lottery to determine the winner.
Friday, current Mayor Pete Carroll selected the winning ball and took home the GOP mayoral nomination.
The situation might be a sad testament about the state of democracy in small-town America. However, the apathy regarding the election of the mayor of Snyder County's largest municipality might have as much to do with the office, itself. Mayors in small boroughs do not have much in the way of official responsibilities. Mayors stand at the ready in the event borough council deadlocks on an issue -- a rare enough occurrence, considering that as a seven-member body, ties only happen when a member is absent or chooses not to vote. Additionally, the mayor is charged with overseeing the police department, though boroughs tend to have police chiefs who provide the required hands-on leadership.
That's it.
Otherwise, mayors have little but ceremonial powers -- reading proclamations, performing weddings and cutting ribbons at grand-opening festivities. The office may have its charm, but it seems to provide little opportunity to make the impact on the community that could compel people to seek political office. It is little wonder that after one term in office, Carroll may want to sit on council rather than watch its members vote, meeting after meeting.
State lawmakers could take a look at the lethargic race for mayor in Selinsgrove and consider if it justifies a review of the office's duties.
Modifying Pennsylvania's borough code to give mayors greater authority or additional opportunity to vote might make the office more attractive to candidates.