Does Oriental Really Have Only Three Commissioners?

I found a record today suggesting that Oriental may only have three legal commissioners, though it has been operating with five since the election of November 2, 1993.

How can that be?

The Town Charter of 1899 provides for three commissioners and a mayor.

In 1992 the General Assembly authorized a referendum on possible changes in the electoral system for the Town of Oriental. In 1993 the General Assembly approved technical corrections to the first act. On November 2, 1993 Oriental voters held a referendum, selecting one of three choices; A: - three commissioners and a separately elected mayor who could vote only in case of a tie; B: - five commissioners, with the highest vote-getter serving as mayor and voting on any issue; C: - five commissioners and a mayor, with the mayor voting only in case of a tie.

The vote was held, and the voters selected option C.

Two problems.

First, the only surviving record of the vote, an abstract of canvassing on file at the County Board of Elections, describes it a a "Bond Ref" and gives no description of the meaning of A, B, or C.

Second, and this may be more significant, no one seems to have told the Secretary of State or the Legislative Library what option the voters chose. This is possibly significant because the ratified Bill includes the following language: "If a plurality of the votes cast are in favor of question 'A', then Section 1 of this act shall become effective beginning with the 1995 regular municipal election. Otherwise, Section 1 of this act shall have no effect." Identical language referred to questions 'B' and 'C' and the corresponding Sections 2 and 3.

So only one of the three Sections can be in effect, but we never told State officials which one. In other words, we never finished the amendment process.

How to fix it? Easy. State Law lets us amend our charter by ordinance. We should do it.