While the Post is pushing full steam ahead for a separate mayoral race for the city of Salisbury, I’m not sure I see the problem with the current system.

If a City Council candidate does not want to be an “accidental mayor,” I’d question why that person is running for council in the first place. If it really is a problem, surely he or she can decline the appointment by his or her colleagues.

Currently, all the top candidates receive a voice on the council. I did not vote for every incumbent member of the council, but I’m glad they all have a seat at the table and we have a diversity of opinion.

With a mayoral race, someone is going to lose and be completely shut out of the system. Additionally, the election could potentially become more polarized, which I suspect some would prefer. I realize that’s the way it’s been done in the surrounding communities, but they do not appear to have fared any better than Salisbury in choosing qualified public servants.

I, rather, suspect the real reason for this flurry of advocacy by the Post has more to do with the leadership of the current mayor than with the methodology of the election. The timing speaks volumes about the true intent of those trying to change the rules. We have a mayor who is striving to usher our city into the prosperous modern era and some people are not happy about it.

— Brad Mobley

Salisbury