Archive Changes left unmade

Home

October 25, 2006

Charter changes best left unmade

ED MARTIN COLUMNIST

The editorial board of the Gondolier Sun and I am in close agreement on the proposed amendments to the Venice Charter. I oppose all four, they oppose all but the three year term for the mayor. For more on this issue read on below. There are four proposed Venice charter questions on the ballot. Here is how I see them.

First, as a citizen, I want to thank the citizens who served on the charter review committee: Greg Roberts, chair; Jim Leis, Diana Miers, Greg Shanika and Jean Trammell. Their meetings often did not attract many participants or observers, but it was through no fault of theirs.

Despite my appreciation for their efforts, I think “No” is the way to vote on all four, although some are more strongly felt than others.

Question (Amendment) 1 would eliminate the requirement that the city manager obtain the advice and consent of city council in order to suspend or remove the fire chief and police chief.

On the “pro” side, the city manager certainly is the key player in hiring and supervising those officials, so one could say let him dismiss them as well.

I suggest “No” because I believe in checks and balances in government — legislative, executive and judicial. The city manager is executive. The council is legislative — elected and therefore responsible to the voters.

As one who has worked for and served on boards and for a congressional committee, it seems unlikely that any city manager or CEO would fire such people without being sure his or her bosses agree. Therefore, this amendment is essentially moot but symbolically increases the city manager’s power, a centralization not necessary or desirable.

Amendment 2 would weaken the position of finance director from a charter officer serving at the pleasure of council (as do the city clerk, attorney and manager) to a department head supervised by the city manager.

Council member John Moore does not favor this change and my conversation with him some time ago leads me to believe it is because of his recognition of the value of checks and balances. Moore was a judge and had more opportunity to appreciate that issue than other council or committee members.

The amendment would also eliminate the list of the duties of the finance director — a list that now clearly indicates the director’s role. Greg Shanika reluctantly gave up his opposition to this amendment, seemingly to achieve a consensus, an understandable but perhaps “too nice” decision.

Corporate America is going in the opposite direction from this amendment. The law and practice is to reduce undue influence on the chief financial officers and auditors by the CEO. Auditors now report to the boards that represent shareholders and the law holds board members responsible for accurate financial presentations.

Finally, I have spoken with the present and past finance directors, and neither wanted to inject himself into the political decision. Both said they thought either system could work.

I had the distinct feeling — my interpretation — that the past director felt there were times when his independence kept a previous city manager from actions he did not feel would have been appropriate.

A good city manager can be followed by a poor one; we have seen both here. Charter officer status offers checks and balances and stability.

Question 3 provides that when filling a vacancy in the office of mayor, the person elected shall fill a three-year term.

The present charter calls for an election to finish the term of the prior mayor. Fred Hammett, serving as mayor because Dean Calamaras resigned, was unopposed and will serve until next November, when he can run for a three-year term.

The “pro” on this issue is that if the interim mayor could be elected for three years in the first place, it would save an election campaign after one year.

At first I thought this might be reasonable, but there is really nothing lost by the one year election. In fact, it gives the public a chance to see how the mayor performs; then, if he or she runs for a three-year term, the voters have a track record to evaluate.

At present, for example, Mayor Hammett has never won a contested election. He lost a council race, was appointed to council to fill a vacancy, was appointed interim mayor and ran unopposed. Let’s see how he does.

Question 4 is perhaps the easiest “No.” It continues a three consecutive terms (a maximum of nine years) limit as mayor or council member. After sitting out a year a person can run again.

The joker in this amendment is that a mayor can run immediately for council or vice versa, so the same person could be in office 18 years without a break.

I would say, “Give me a break.” Eighteen years is too much for anyone to be in office.

An argument can be that the voters have to elect this person. If the playing field was level, that might be reasonable but the playing field is not level.

Just say “No” again.

Ed Martin has been a speech pathologist, teacher, administrator, government leader, professor of public policy and writer, and a director of three corporations. In Venice he is active in church, interfaith, neighborhood, foundation and charity activities. He can be reached at:

ed@insideveniceflorida.com

Webmaster

Website Designed and Maintained by

Joe@McKee.net