It’s one of two city charter question Derby voters will answer when they go to the polls Tuesday, Nov. 8.
And it’s the topic of an in-depth discussion the Valley Indy hosted last month with Aldermen Carmen DiCenso, Joe DiMartino and Art Gerckens, along with Charter Revision Commission member Adam Pacheco and Walt Mayhew, a former member of the Board of Aldermen, the Board of Education and the Derby tax board.
Click the play button above or below to listen to the broadcast. It’s a podcast, which means audio only.
The story after the polls summarizes the issue, but the podcast above delves deeper.
What Are We Talking About?
The “dual office” rule has been in the Derby Charter for generations.
It’s meant to deter undue influence in city government. The same provision bars city officials from doing business with the city — that rule will be also be thrown out if voters check the “yes” box on charter question no. 2 Nov. 8.
The panelists seemed unaware of this fact during the podcast interview, which caused several to rethink their position. Click play to listen to the episode.
The “dual office” section of the city’s charter — that is, the document that serves as the blueprint for government — was created in direct response to conflicts of interest once inherent in Derby government.
Up until the 1950s, Derby Aldermen and other appointed or elected officials could make money off their elected positions, according to the Evening Sentinel, a Valley newspaper that closed in the 1990s. Elected officials were able to funnel city contracts to the businesses they owned.
The Evening Sentinel published a series of articles on the issue. An Aldermen at the time described his fellow officials as “leeches who have been on the gravy train too many years.”
Uh, So Why Get Rid Of The Rule?
The move to delete the requirement comes on the heels of the Derby school board voting to water-down its nepotism policy, making it easier for their relatives to get jobs in the school district. The two issues are similar, but independent of each other.
People who want to get rid of the “dual office” rule say voters get final say over elections. Voting is sacred. If the voters want to elect government employees to run the government, so be it.
“I take issue that we can have language in a city document that would essentially dictate to the voter how they can and can’t vote,” Pacheco, a member of the Charter Revision Commission, says in the podcast posted above. “I don’t believe that is the place of government. I think that we have to put a little faith in the electorate and the voters that says they’re educated enough to know who the individual they are voting for is, and what that individual stands for.”
Proponents say that requiring unanimous approval from Aldermen regarding “dual office” holders is problematic because it gives too much potential power to a lone wolf Alderman with an ax to grind to usurp the will of the people.
They also point out elected officials are already regulated by a local code of ethics, which spells out what officials can and cannot do.
However, a critical component of that code — the Derby Board of Ethics — does not exist.
Leave It Alone, It’s Worked So Far
The questions on Derby’s Nov. 8 ballot come from the Charter Revision Commission, an appointed body that met twice a week all summer.
Input from the general public was minimal, despite several public hearings.
But one voice who spoke out: James Cohen, Derby’s former corporation counsel. He said the provision should be left alone.
“No one should be in a position to directly or indirectly benefit himself or herself through election and service on a Derby city board,” Cohen told the Board of Aldermen. “Because there is the built-in waiver possibility, the prohibition is not absolute.”
He urged the city to honor the provision’s intent.
“As I am not aware of any significant reason to remove this time-honored safeguard from the Charter,” Cohen said, “I professionally suggest that it has served the City well over the years, and I personally and respectfully suggest that it should be retained.”
In the podcast discussion above, Alderman DiCenso, who urges voters to delete the provision, notes the question being put to voters isn’t perfect.
DiCenso suggested the Derby Charter be changed so that the waiver provision requires a majority vote from the Board of Aldermen, instead of a unanimous vote. He said the process to get this on the Nov. 8 ballot was “rushed.”
Gerckens, in the interview above, said that public employees should be held to a higher standard because the potential for conflicts of interest exists when they double as public officials.
Mayhew, in the same interview posted above, said deleting the provision wholesale is “flat-out wrong.”
Why Now?
The move to get rid of the “dual office” requirement started in December 2015.
Alderman Gerckens has been questioning whether conflicts of interest exist in Derby government. Specifically, he’s questioned the fact a member of the Board of Aldermen and a member of the tax board work for the city’s problem-plagued sewer department.
When the current crop of elected officials took the oath of office in December, Aldermen unanimously granted “dual office” waivers to three of the nine Aldermen who double as government employees.
Meeting minutes show Gerckens urged his fellow Aldermen to watch for conflicts of interest.
But there was talk that Gerckens was going to vote against the “dual office” waivers.
The talk about Gerckens possibly voting no spooked Alderman DiMartino, who works for the Department of Public Works, in addition to coaching Derby High School softball.
One person shouldn’t be able to change the results of an election, DiMartino has said. A Charter Revision Commission was formed, and members of the Board of Aldermen, including Alderman DiCenso and Alderwoman Barbara DeGennaro, spoke in favor of eliminating the “dual office” waiver rule.
Gerckens, in the podcast, notes that voting against a waiver based on a grudge would be “political suicide” in Derby.
Gerckens further pointed out that two sitting members of the Board of Aldermen — Alderman DiMartino and Alderman Steven Iacuone — are also part of a union team negotiating contracts with the mayor. That’s an issue, Gerckens said.
The Board of Aldermen approve union contracts, though both DiMartino and Iacuone are not expected to cast votes on the contracts when they come up for a vote in front of the Aldermen.
Listen to the podcast for even more details and debate over whether the “dual office” rule should be eliminated.
If you prefer, the YouTube version of the discussion is posted below. The article continues after the document.
— — —REMINDER: THERE ARE TWO DERBY CHARTER QUESTIONS TO DECIDE NOV. 8. — — -
It is strongly recommended you read a sample ballot before casting your vote. Click here to download a sample ballot from the City of Derby website.
Click here for information on the Nov. 8 election and the Derby Charter questions.
The “dual office” question will be appear on the Derby ballot as follows:
Question #2
Shall Section 14 of the Charter of the City of Derby entitled “Dual office holding, etc.” be deleted in accordance with the report and recommendation of the Charter Revision Commission of 2016 regarding said section?
Yes No
The city has offered the following “explanatory text” for the “dual office” question:
This question, if approved, would delete the section in its entirety and eliminate the prohibition against dual office holding by a member of the Board of Aldermen and eliminate the prohibition against City officials doing business with or being employed to do any work for the City of Derby unless the prohibition is waived by the unanimous vote of the Board of Aldermen.
Deleting the “dual office” rule is the second of two Charter Revision questions Derby residents are being asked to approve or reject.
The end of the podcast above contains a brief discussion of the first question.
Question no. 1 reads as follows:
“Shall the Charter of the City of Derby be revised in accordance with the report and recommendations of the Charter Revision Commission of 2016?
Yes___ No___
This is the official “explanatory text” regarding question no. 1 issued by Derby city government (if your screen is blank, click here to download the text from the City of Derby website):
Derby Explains That Charter Question by The Valley Indy on Scribd
