Is Salisbury’s Charter Change a Good Idea?

As a conservative, I am naturally skeptical of constitutional amendments.  In Salisbury, the city charter is the equivalent of a city’s constitution.  I am particularly skeptical of charter amendments.  Unlike the US Constitution, which requires a 2/3’s vote by BOTH houses of Congress and the approval of the legislatures of 3/4 of the states (or 3/5 of both houses and a majority of voters in the next election for Maryland’s Constitution), Salisbury’s charter only requires the affirmative vote of three (3) council members.  Despite my skepticism, the charter amendment approved by Salisbury’s city council last night is a wise move.

Last June Mayor Jim Ireton blocked the city attorney from briefing the city council on pending litigation.  He explained his action to the Daily Times by claiming that he did so because the council did not provide adequate public notice (for a closed session).  Ireton’s primary shill on council, Laura Mitchell, argued that the Mayor prevented City Attorney Paul Wilber from meeting with council because the Mayor and certain department heads were not available to meet with council at that time.  Regardless of whether one (or both) of these explanations is true, Ireton violated the city’s charter by acting as he did.
IF the council violated Maryland’s Open Meeting Act by scheduling the meeting when they did (remember - IF) it is still Ireton’s responsibility under the charter to provide access to the City Attorney.  He can’t claim that Wilber wasn’t available because Wilber had already agreed to the meeting.  Ireton’s only legal response was to file a complaint with the state.
IF Mitchell’s explanation is true, it’s irrelevant.  The Mayor cannot dictate the council’s schedule.  Yet, Mitchell has the chutzpah to argue that the charter amendment attacks the city’s separation of powers.
Early in the discussion, Mitchell stated that this would result in “at least a ‘weak mayor’” (a form of government which I have never heard of).  Ireton went so far (in a letter to council) as to claim that this charter amendment would result in a parliamentary form of government.  Ireton needs to stick to teaching reading.  Amusingly while Ireton and Mitchell argue that this amendment mortally wounds the city’s strong mayor form of government, separation of powers is actually strengthened by this amendment.  Access to legal counsel (by both mayor and council) is enumerated in the charter.  The only power the mayor loses is the ability to hire / fire a City Attorney and the ability to waste taxpayer dollars drafting legislation without prior consultation with the city’s legislative body.  Jim’s ego will somehow survive.
Over the short and long terms this should save Salisbury taxpayers some money.  While certainly not approaching the majority of legal costs, forcing the administration to confer with council BEFORE drafting legislation will save money.  However, it is impossible to codify these savings – as Mitchell attempted with one of her superfluous amendments.
Was this handled perfectly?  No.  In theory, I would have preferred that more time was spent contemplating this measure.  That said, the people screaming the loudest that this measure was “rushed” are some of the same people who complain the loudest that council spends too much time vetting legislation (namely Ireton, councilwoman Shanie Shields, and some of the area’s more poorly informed bloggers).  This legislation has received plenty of press coverage.  The legislation was thoughtfully drafted.  While Shields fretted over some “gramical” sic errors, that’s hardly a reason to throw the baby out with bath water.  Holding this legislation for one, two, or more meetings would probably not yield better legislation.  The vote certainly would not have changed.
The bottom line seems to be that Ireton’s ego is bruised, Mitchell again proved that she’s not as clever as she wishes us to believe, and some folks are opposed simply because council members Debbie Campbell, Terry Cohen, and Tim Spies support the measure.
Curiously, where was Mitchell’s outrage when Shields, Louise Smith, and Gary Comegys amended the charter at a SPECIAL daytime meeting for obvious political purposes?  If Ireton and Mitchell are so offended by this measure, they have a mechanism to override it.  I suggest that they both buy a few new pairs of shoes and start gathering signatures.