Council Plans Yearlong Charter Review

Feedback on “Council Plans Yearlong Charter Review”

The Charter language that creates the biggest controversies, that really shouldn’t, concerns compensated city employees (paid workers) and their permitted and prohibited political activity. Here is the section in its entirety that you have printed before:

“No person who holds any compensated appointive City position shall make, solicit or receive any contribution to the campaign funds of any political party or any candidate for public office or take any part in the management, affairs or political campaigns of any political party, but he may exercise his rights as a citizen to express his opinions and to cast his vote.”

Obviously, as you have pointed out in the past, the Charter, as it sits, prevents employees from doing anything political except voicing their opinion and casting a vote. They can not take part in any political campaign, which would obviously mean their own. They can’t seek elected office as it stands.

When I was a councilman, I was sworn to uphold the charter, as it stands, and despite having employee friends seeking school board seats, I had to oppose them doing that.

I worry that the new commission will attempt to permit employees to seek school board and magisterial seats, but limit them from seeking City ofices. In my opinion, that is the worst of both worlds. It puts city employees in a position that they could be subject to undo influence by their bosses at the city to influence their votes at the school district. Likewise, I believe that people who work for the city, by their work experiences, have insights into our local government and the operation of our city that the general public doesn’t. I point to Mr. Segina, who is a former Public Works Diretor. His knowledge of former past practices, what worked and what didn’t, guide him to make some wise decisions.

I believe that former Mayor Bendel added the prohibitions to the Charter to protect employees from undo influence. If taken out of the political process, they are more free to devote their time and their thoughts to the business of the city.

That being said, I agree with some of your earlier comments that the voters should decide who can serve and who can not at election time.

If the Carter is to be adjusted on this matter, I would propose the following:

1) City Employees can seek any office as long as they are otherwise eligible candidates. (Residents, Over 18 and not disqualified due to past felonies.)

2) Also, any prohibitions for seeking elected office, such as the Hatch Act, would be strictly enforced. (This should go without saying but in order to have an unambiguous Charter, I’d add the verbiage.)

3) There would be an explicit and complete prohibition for any employee to politic for themselves or any other candidate on city time. Also, all employees would be banned from political activity on any City equipment, including but not limited to phones, copiers, computers, and vehicles.

Non-Adherence to the prohibitions against campaigning on city time would result in immediate dismissal upon satisfaction by their department head and the city’s personnel committee that such actions, did in fact occur.

The voters don’t always decide who is best to serve but they typically get their chance to make corrections at subsequent elections. I’d rather put the complete power in their hands than have an elected body pick and choose which employees can run for which offices.

I am curious to hear your opinions on the new Committee and in particular, the area of the Charter I have discussed.

I would gladly volunteer my time to serve on this new board. I am reaching out to Chairman Tedesco to offer my services to the committee.

Paul
Paul - March 09, 2012

One or more comments are waiting for approval by an editor.