FAQFAQ   SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlistRegisterRegister  ProfileProfile   Log in[ Log in ]  Flint Talk RSSFlint Talk RSS

»Home »Open Chat »Political Talk  Â»Flint Journal »Political Jokes »The Bob Leonard Show  

Flint Michigan online news magazine. We have lively web forums


FlintTalk.com Forum Index > Political Talk

Topic: #1 What were the objectives of the Charter Commission with o

  Author    Post Post new topic Reply to topic
terrybankert
F L I N T O I D

Reform the Current Flint City Charter?

#1 What were the objectives of the Charter Commission with our current Charter?

FLINT CITIZEN-By: Terry Bankert 11/12/05

In a series of articles I propose to review the expectations, performance and need for a stronger implementation or amendment of the current Flint City Charter. My mind it open but my starting point is that we have a good charter that has been poorly implemented. The community if involved can through knowledge and action affect how politicians run their city and how they can hold the city accountable.

Here I will review the purpose and expectations stated by the Charter Commission when the 1974 Charter was adopted as a basis for measuring the effectiveness of our current charter. I draw from principally a publication of the 1974 Flint Charter Commission(CRC).

When the 1974 Charter was adopted it replaced the 1929 City Manager Charter with what the Charter Commission called a " responsible Mayor" form of government. Note the subtle difference in responsible vs strong mayor.

In the 1974 Charter.."the Mayor will preside over the officials responsible for the day to day work of the City (line officials or department heads) and the policy advisors ( staff officials). The Mayor may propose legislation to the City Council and may veto legislation passed by the Council. The City Council may override the veto with a 2/3 vote of its members elect..." The Mayor and Council are equal participants in the creation and implementation of public policy.

" The Mayor will be assisted in carrying out his or her duties by a City Administrator.(C.A.). The C.A. will be appointed by the Mayor with Council approval and will serve at the pleasure of ( that is can be dismissed by) the Mayor alone. The (CRC) created this position because it believes that the leadership duties of the Mayor will be so great that the complex day-to-day business of the City requires a full time professional administrator." Every council and administration, except one, has dropped the ball on this topic by allowing non professionals to fill this position. The exceptions are David Ready and Darnel Early when appointed by Mayor Stanley. How ironic.

The City Council is a legislative body. It may introduce and pass legislation proposed by the Mayor. In addition the Council appoints the City Clerk and Ombudsman, and audits the City’s books. Council members were to continue to be elected by ward, on a non-partisan ballot to a 2 year term. The 2 year term was to keep the council persons close to the community. To keep them accountable. Our city was hurt deeply by the los of council accountability when the council terms went from 2 years to 4 years.

In our current charter the executive and legislative activities are separate and the two branches check each other. Policy decisions and directions must ultimately come from the council. The Mayor is responsible for the performance of the government; he or she must make the city work as the "Council decrees it should." As the council decrees it should. These are words from the charter commission. This phrase is the foundation for my position that we have a responsible mayor and strong council charter. To call it a strong mayor weak council demonstrates a lack of understanding of the powers of the council.

The 1974 Charter opened up City Government. It allowed for the review of the need for the cities 37 independent boards an commissions. It created a standards of conduct board. This is important because independent bodies that do the publics business are hidden from accountability and tend to be elite driven organizations.

Pre -1974 these boards did much of the cities business. Today as I will argue in a later article much of the public business is done by the non profits. "..the CRC felt that the present independent board and commission system does not give citizens enough control over board activities. Citizen interest is better served when elected officials are responsible for such services." I argue that good public policy is for the elected officials to run the services of the city. It is appropriate for a mayor and council to dismantle , alter or enhance the service delivery of the non profits when they are spending tax dollars. These non profits operated in the shadows with little accountability. Editors and business leaders may beat the drum for them, we may feel that since we don’t trust our elected officials to run our business mabey these quasi secret societies ( the non profits) are better suited. I answer nonsense. I want my elected officials to be on top of what’s happens with all of my tax dollars. The current mayor has forced accountability of the non profits with a bull dozer instead of a shovel. But accountability is need and we must review regularly the service provided by a non profit and ask might it be better delivered by the city. Responsible citizens should only elect mayors and council persons up to this task.

Rules and hearing provisions in the 1974 Charter also enable greater citizen involvement. There are stiff requirements for the publication and compilation of rules and procedures. Public hearing on rules changes and ordinances were designed to keep citizens involved.

" Citizen interest in the effective and ethical conduct of City business is served by two measures. The Ombudsman and the Standards of Conduct Board. The Ombudsmans office is intended to check unfair or bad practices of the City administration. The Ombudsman has broad powers of investigation in City Affairs. The officer responsible to citizen inquires may initiate investigations." " The Standards of Conduct board oversees the conduct of elected officials and guards against the unethical conduct of City business."

The 1974 Charter was intended by the CRC to " meet its requirements for a clear, flexible and broad charter which opens up government process to the citizenry and which draws clear lines of responsibility and accountability.

Based upon the 1974 Charter Commissions own criteria which follow has our current charter been successful?

1. The Charter was to create a " responsible Mayor" vs a strong Mayor, has it? In application with the council not rising to the level of power it was given and the Mayor seizing more power than given the Charter has failed us, the answer is no.

2. Are the Mayor and Council are equal participants in the creation and implementation of public policy? No, see above.

3. Is the City Administrator a full time professional administrator? No, we have not demanded the profesional management the charter called for.

4. Do Policy decisions and directions ultimately come from the council? No, see #1.

5. Is The Mayor is responsible for the performance of the government? Yes.

6. Does the Mayor make the city work as the "Council decrees it should? No see #1.

7. Is our City Government open to the public? No, for reasons not talked about here .

8. Does the standards of conduct board. Do its job? No, to my knowledge they do not meet.

9. Have the Rules and hearing provisions in the 1974 Charter enabled greater citizen involvement? Unknown but I doubt it.

10. Has Citizen interest in the effective and ethical conduct of City business been served by the two measures. The Ombudsman and the Standards of Conduct Board? With the Ombudsman and standard of conduct board not working for the last 2-3 years the answer has to be No.

11. The 1974 Charter was intended by the CRC to " meet its requirements for a clear, flexible and broad charter which opens up government process to the citizenry and which draws clear lines of responsibility and accountability. Has it accomplished this objective? NO.

Not withstanding my starting bias, this logic would cause me to say our charter appears to have failed us. It does need a citizens review. How will that happen?

Article #2 will be the 1974 Charter and the Legislative Branch (City Council)

You thoughts and comments are sought. My email address is below.





The Flint Citizen is a publication of Attorney Terry R. Bankert of Flint Michigan USA. http://enewsblog.com/terrybankert/

attorneybankert@yahoo.com

Terry R. Bankert P.C., 1000 Beach St., Flint MI 48503 810.235.1970 fax 234-5080
Post Wed Nov 23, 2005 3:41 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  Reply with quote  
  Display posts from previous:      
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  


Last Topic | Next Topic  >

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Flint Michigan online news magazine. We have lively web forums

Website Copyright © 2010 Flint Talk.com
Contact Webmaster - FlintTalk.com >