A View From a Pew: Power, Politics, and the People’s Voice

On Tuesday, September 23, 2025, our City Council will introduce two controversial resolutions. On the surface, both may sound like matters of procedure. But when you look closer, what’s really at stake is trust, power, and who truly has a say in the future of Columbus.

The First Resolution: A Pause That Solves Little

District 10 At-Large Councilor Travis Chambers is proposing that Council wait 30 days before filling a vacant seat. That’s a response to what happened earlier this year, when John Anker was appointed less than three hours after Councilor Judy Thomas resigned.

Yes, the speed of that decision was shameful. And yes, giving time before acting is better than rushing. But let’s be honest—thirty days of waiting doesn’t change the outcome if Council still gets to pick the replacement behind closed doors. That’s not reform; that’s delay. While Councilor Chambers’ proposal acknowledges that problem, it doesn’t go far enough. If we’re serious about accountability, the only fair solution is to let the people choose through a special election. Anything else leaves us in the same place—appointments driven more by politics than by the public good.

The Second Resolution: Changing the Mayor’s Role

The second proposal, from District 4 Councilor Toyia Tucker, would amend the Charter to take away the mayor’s authority over public safety and create a new Public Safety Director position. That change would have to go through the Georgia General Assembly and then be approved by voters in a 2026 referendum.

Here’s the question that keeps me up at night: ever since Muscogee County’s mayor was made a full-time position, every single mayor has also carried the title of Public Safety Director. That’s been the structure for decades. So why the change now—on the eve of a major election?

Supporters argue that the change will improve accountability. But the unanswered questions are glaring: Who will appoint this new director? How much will it cost taxpayers? Won’t this duplicate responsibilities already handled by the mayor? More importantly, why should voters be asked to change the charter for one narrowly focused power shift, when broader reforms are overdue?

This proposal is nothing more than an attempt to weaken the mayor’s office out of fear of who may be elected next. To call it anything else is dishonest. It is, quite frankly, discrimination in Black face—a targeted move that no other council in our city’s history has ever attempted.

 My Pew Perspective

Both resolutions require amendments to our Charter. That’s no small thing. Amending the Charter is not just housekeeping—it’s rewriting the very rules of how we govern ourselves.

Councilor Chambers wants a pause before appointments. Councilor Tucker wants to strip the mayor of a power every mayor before has held. In different ways, both proposals reveal the same truth: we don’t trust the system as it stands. But patchwork fixes and politically timed changes will not heal that broken trust.

If we open the Charter, let’s do it with transparency, with courage, and with the people’s voice at the center. Not to protect political interests, but to strengthen democracy. Because anything less is just politics dressed up as progress.