Charter referendum petitions are an important part of our democracy, but when the petitioners and public are misinformed, it is my duty as an elected representative to provide accurate information to preserve the integrity of the process and give the public the opportunity to make an informed decision.
For instance, last Sunday, the Daily Times misinformed readers about the Charter amendment. The amendment WILL allow the city’s legislative body, the city council, unfiltered access to the legal advice of the city attorney. It WILL prevent the city’s Mayor from denying the city council access to the city attorney. The old charter language was especially problematic because it could be and was used to prevent the city attorney from keeping the council apprised of litigation, thereby undermining accountability, outcomes, and effectiveness. The charter change WILL place the authority of selecting and retaining the city attorney with the legislative body, the city council.
It will NOT prevent the Mayor from directing the city attorney relative to conducting the day-to-day business of the city. The things that will remain unchanged: the City Administrator (Mr. Pick) WILL CONTINUE to serve at the pleasure of the Mayor and Council; the City Clerk WILL CONTINUE to serve at the pleasure of the council; all other department heads will CONTINUE to serve at the pleasure of the Mayor with advice and consent of the council. The charter change does NOT change the city’s form of government. (See Sections 2-10, 4-3 and 8-1 of the City Charter, which is available online and at the county library)
A letter to the editor and electronic blast communications mid-week perpetuated the misunderstandings.
The decision was NOT made in haste and it was NOT made without the proper public notice. Among the contributing factors supporting the need for this change are the inefficiency and duplication of effort that the old language fosters as legislation is drafted, the problems that Salisbury has had with its laws withstanding court challenge once written, a lack of conformity between various sections of the code, and numerous other inefficiencies that have plagued progress in the city back for a decade. The Charter amendment WAS passed at a regularly scheduled televised meeting of the council (10/10). It WAS advertised in the usual manner with the agenda and briefing materials available to the public the Thursday prior to the Monday meeting. As an extra step in informing the public, a press release WAS distributed to local media outlets by the Council President in advance of the meeting (10/5). (The meeting audio is available from the city clerk.)
During the last election someone who has long supported Salisbury’s suffering stated, “Who cares if it’s true or not? We’ll say it anyway.” This is a tactic that has often been used to keep Salisbury down.
The truth is, the amendment and the resolution’s stated rationales are very straight forward and practical. It is modest and I believe that it will drive positive change. I have provided the citations that will allow readers to fact check.
Debbie Campbell
Debbie Campbell is Salisbury City Council Vice President.
12 comments:
I would rather have 3 people deciding about the attorney than 1. Also, if a council isn't responsible in the way that they handle the responsibility we can change it every 2 years instead of with the Mayor every 4 years. I like the change.
I agree that this is an important improvement to the charter and will support it.
12:16
Diddo
thank you Terry, Debbie, and Tim for having the political courage to do the right thing. If passed, it will move the City in a better direction.
As for Mayor Ireton, I really do think he cares about our city and has done some good things- trouble is that his ego and his inability to tolerate dissenting views puts him in the same category as our former mayor.
As for councilwoman Mitchell, It appears that her allegiance to Ire-ton supersedes her critical thinking skills.
As for councilwoman Shields, well,
you know...
Thank you Debbie for keeping us informed. The slanted view of the recent newspaper article seemed distorted and vague.I can't think of one reason that this amendment should not have been enacted.
This is BS, All is does is undercut and circumvent the power and authority or the Executive Branch. Clearly un-constitutional and imperialistic on the part of the Council President and her stooges.
Methinks that anon.1:34 is Jimmy himself...
I think every one should thank Debbie Campbell for taking the time to EDUCATE the public with the TRUTH.
Relying on the Daily Times any longer is just wrong. Look, more importantly, at least there's another venue, (Salisbury News) that can put out the other side and I personally want to thank Debbie for choosing us AND placing her name to prove its credibility.
Just like everything I've ever done here, many may not like the TRUTH and some may choose to challenge us. However, there IS another source to get it right and this is exactly why I enjoy seeing the volume of traffic to this site daily, knowing we're making a positive difference.
1:34 is just ignorant. What's unconstitutional about it? The Constitution of Maryland gives the council the right to do this. I looked it up after Terry Cohen's letter to the editor. (I also confess that I haven't read our state constitution since high school until then!)
1:34 is another one of those Debbie Campbell wrote about who says who cares if it's true or not, we'll say it anyway.
read this in sunday times. think to satisfy public it should go to referendum. Just MO
anonymous 3:13, WHAT PUBLIC? The ONLY people interested in such a thing are the new DIRTY DOZEN, or have you forgotten they exist. Good luck getting all the signatures at this point. People are now educated and will start slamming doors in your faces.
The new "Dirty Dozen." Do you mean the meeting of Mike Dunn, Louise Smith, Shanie Shields, Laura Mitchell, Phil Tilghman, TJ Maloney, and so forth, and so on, at the Chamber a week or so ago?
Post a Comment