CHARTER COMMISSION STATUS.

Last night the Charter Study Commission held its third “Interview” meeting. The participants were former City Administrators Lawrence Bashe, Harold Gibson who also served as an elected Councilman and its President, as well as former Councilor Don Davis. I unfortunately had to leave before Don Davis gave his testimony.

After hearing three former Council Presidents* and two previous Administrators*, I am now of the opinion that there is little fundamentally wrong with the present charter and only a little tweaking would be needed. The problem mostly lies in the hands of the individuals who fill the present roles defined by the Charter.

Most of the problems arise from misapplication of the functions intended in the Charter. Ultimately it is we the voters who are responsible for the selection of those who “run” the city. It is hoped that those who hold or seek an office do so because of a desire to help the city not because they need a job.

One factor that has changed over the years is the interpretation of the Mayors role and the City Administrator. The Charter was written with the idea that the Mayor would be part-time not full time and that the City Administrator would be the responsible person for the City’s operations.

Whether he recommended the individuals the Mayor appoints as Department Directors or personally made the appointments should be a moot question. These individuals should be responsible to the Administrator. Also the administrator should be responsible for the other managerial appointments. If that were adhered to the political element that creates much of the difficulty in our government would be avoided.

Only one of the four that I listened to felt that the Council should have a separate legal representative.  The Corporation Counsel is supposed to represent all the City Government and the public. He can appoint a Special Counsel when there are circumstances in which his role would be compromised.

The Corporation Counsel is in the government for his legal expertise and should not act as the Mayor’s spokesperson before the Council. That is a role Williamson played over the years often telling the Council that the Mayor was against a certain resolution or ordinance. Occasionally the message would be;”she would like”.

The feeling of many is that the Corporation Counsel cannot serve two masters (true) since his position is appointed by the Mayor and theoretically for the term of the Mayor’s office. But the Mayor could fire him, However the Charter and Code gives the Council the opportunity to negate any firing by the Mayor; an action it took ion the Taylor case.

Most believe that since the City Clerk’s duties involve both administrative and Council functions it is proper that he be appointed in the same manner as other city officials.

All believe that the present 4 Wards should not be tampered with; although there were differences expressed in the allocation of the Councilors. Mr Gibson suggested two Councilors per Ward and one elected at large who would be the Council President.

No one has spoken in favor of non-partisan elections.

This Commission has a tremendous difficult task ahead of them. I do not envy them. I am sure their ultimate recommendations will not please everybody but it will be the one that they think best for the city.

WE the Citizens will have the opportunity to accept or reject their conclusions.

AS Mr. Bashe pointed out it is the Administrations role to make appointments, the Council’s function of consent and advice should just be that. Unfortunately the` process has become politicalized by both Administration and Council. 

*No, my math is not wrong; Gibson qualifies as both Council President and City Administrator