After much debate, the Derby Board of Aldermen voted Sept. 6 to put the two questions out on the ballot.
The two questions voters will be asked to approve or reject are:
1. “Shall the Charter of the City of Derby be revised in accordance with the report and recommendations of the Charter Revision Commission of 2016, excluding that change identified in #2?”
Yes
No
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
Charter What?
The Derby Charter is a written set of rules dictating how City Hall operates. It’s a blueprint for city government, spelling out everything from how long the mayor can serve to the procedures regulating sealed bids.
The Derby Charter Revision Commission, an appointed body, has been working on changing the charter since June. The Valley Indy published a podcast interview with Alderman Art Gerckens, of the Charter Revision Commission, in July. Click here to listen.
The public is being asked to approve a number of relatively small changes to the document, along with two fairly large, substantive changes.
The lesser changes include:
- Changing the name of “street commissioner” to “director of public works.”
- Eliminating references to the long-dormant “sinking fund commission.”
- Eliminating a reference to the Birmingham Water Co.
- Making the document gender-neutral. Examples — “Policeman” becomes “police officer,” Alderman can become “Alderwoman,” “chairman” becomes “chairperson.”
- Eliminating the requirement to advertise government notifications exclusively in print newspapers.
A copy of the charter is posted below. The changes are marked in red. Eliminations are marked with red cross-throughs.
Derby Charter Changes by The Valley Indy on Scribd
In addition, the city wants to increase the dollar amount to trigger bids. The Charter right now sets the amount at $1,000 and $2,500 for the Department of Public Works.
Derby officials have argued the threshold is much to low.
The recommendation is to up the dollar amount to $15,000.
The more substantial changes include deleting the entire “dual office holding” section of the Derby charter.
What’s That?
It’s the section of the charter that prevents Derby employees from doubling as elected or appointed officials, unless they get a waiver from the Board of Aldermen. Approval of the waiver must be unanimous.
The requirement is a check within the local government, preventing people who work for the city from also controlling city government.
The “dual office holding” section was put in the Derby Charter back in the 1950s.
At the time, several elected or appointed officials made money off their role in local government.
According to 1953 Evening Sentinel newspaper reports:
- An Alderman at the time supplied the city with gasoline.
- A member of the Board of Education purchased groceries for a city department from her family’s store.
- A member of the tax board was a plumber who did business with the city.
According to the Evening Sentinel, Alderman Michael V. Vellaco described his fellow elected officials as “leeches who have been on the gravy train too many years.”
The motivation to eliminate the requirement came from Alderman Joseph DiMartino, who represents Derby’s Second Ward and works for the Derby Department of Public Works.
He said requiring a unanimous Aldermen vote for city employees potentially gives too much power to one person on the Board of Aldermen.
An Alderman with an ax to grind could potentially derail the will of the people, DiMartino and Aldermanic President Carmen DiCenso have said.
The move to delete the section is indirectly tied to DiMartino’s fellow Second Ward Alderman, Art Gerckens.
Gerckens has questioned whether Derby elected officials on the tax board and Board of Aldermen are too cozy with city employees.
Specifically, Gerckens has noted employees of the city’s troubled Water Pollution Control Authority also serve on the tax board and the Board of Aldermen.
The Sept. 6 Vote
The Sept. 6 vote to send the questions to voters wasn’t without debate. Initially the majority of the Board of Aldermen just wanted to send a single, vaguely worded question to voters (see no. 1) above.
They did not want voters to weigh in directly on dual office holding.
DiCenso wanted to change the wording of the Charter Revision Commission’s recommendation on the matter, something he was not allowed to due under the rules governing charter revision.
Gerckens urged his fellow Aldermen not to “hide” the dual office holding measure from voters.
“Let the voters decide,” Gerckens said, “but let’s put it out there fairly, so that can see it.”
Upon a second vote, the Aldermen decided to put both questions on the Nov. 8 ballot.
