Editor’s note: Derby voters head to the polls Nov. 8 to answer two charter revision questions. Click here for the Charter Revision Commission report. Click here for the explanatory text for question 1. Question 2 asks whether the “dual office holding” section of the charter should be deleted.
I’d like to recommend that Derby citizens vote YES on Question 1 and NO on Question 2 on Election Day.
Question 1 addresses the challenges placed before the Charter Revision Commission, such as making the language gender neutral, fixing the spelling and grammar errors, and picking out one or two issues that would make it easier to do business with the City of Derby.
Although we had a seemingly impossible task in order to meet our timeline, we decided at the very first meeting to meet twice a week all summer long.
Although the members of the commission were all volunteers, there is a cost to the city for conducting these meetings.
Opening the building is one cost, but the person who takes the minutes of the meetings and the Corporation Counsel both get paid. So there was a real cost to the city for this process.
I’d hate to think all the dedicated hours spent debating and preparing Question 1 was for naught.
We brought in the Chief of Police, the Street Commissioner, the City Treasurer and the Finance Director in front of us to explain what they felt was needed to run the city more efficiently.
In the end, we came up with some very good ideas to save the city some money and to assist department heads acquire the goods and services they need.
If question 1 passes, we will have public hearings before the sale of city property. This will allow the public to provide input before city property is disposed.
We would strip out the outdated and costly publication requirement. We’re currently required to publish in a newspaper in New Haven County with a circulation in Derby for many things. There is only one New Haven County newspaper with a circulation in Derby. This means we will break up this monopoly they have over the city and save money in so doing.
We envision getting the message out through the city web site, electronic news media, and social media. For those who do not use those means, copies would be available in all public buildings.
We’re proposing to increase limits currently handcuffing department heads and improve the processes for purchases. This is what was meant with the challenge to make it easier to do business with the city.
Approving Question 1 is good for Derby.
Vote “YES” on Question 1.
Moving on to Question 2. Here’s Section 14 of the Charter.
Section 14. Dual office holding, etc.
No officer of said city shall be at the same time a member of the Board of Aldermen. Neither the Mayor, Street Commissioner, Fire Commissioner nor any other officer of said city, either elected or appointed, including members of the Board of Aldermen, members of the Board of Apportionment and Taxation, members of the Finance Committee and members of the Board of Education, shall directly or indirectly furnish any materials to said city, or be directly or indirectly employed to do any work for said city except his/her official duty. The provisions of this section may be waived by a unanimous vote of the Board of Aldermen.
Let’s break down Section 14 into three simple sentences and speak plain English.
Sentence 1.
No officer of Derby is also permitted to be a member of the Board of Aldermen.
In other words, the Corporation Counsel, Tax Collector, Chief of Staff, Chief Administrative Officer, Police Commissioners, Building Official, and Town Clerk (and more) cannot also be members of the Board of Aldermen.
Subsequently, if we remove Section 14 from the Charter (and the person is a Derby resident) all those people would be permitted to also be members of the Board of Aldermen while collecting their city paychecks.
I can’t find fault with Sentence 1.
Sentence 2.
Nobody on this list is allowed to furnish goods or materials or do work for Derby whether they were elected or appointed.
If Section 14 is removed, any of the people listed above could use their influence to divert city jobs to their private business or their friends or relatives business.
Is it unreasonable to think this wouldn’t happen? The Valley Independent Sentinel listed examples of this occurring in the past, so it would be foolish to think it wouldn’t present itself in the future.
I can’t find fault with Sentence 2.
Sentence 3.
Section 14 can be waived by a unanimous vote of the Board of Aldermen.
This is the sentence that caused angina among some members of the community. The argument is that a single individual should not be able to overturn the vote of the people.
Despite the fact that no elected official has ever been denied a waiver, those in favor of removing Section 14, claim that one man or woman with a grudge could deny the vote of the people.
On Election Day, one man or one woman will be entrusted with our nation’s nuclear arsenal. As citizens we trust our elected officials will use good judgment.
If someone did deny a waiver over a grudge it would amount to political suicide.
The person would likely never hold political office again and it’s very likely the person would be ostracized from the community.
In fact, the Charter provides a means to discipline aldermen including removing them from office for cause. I believe denying a waiver over a grudge would set this process in motion.
We live in a country that recognizes a representative form of government. Every day those who hold office make decisions that affect all of us. Some decisions are good, some are bad, but it’s the form of democracy this country has embraced.
Those in favor of removing Section 14, claim that when they go door knocking, the people know they work for the city based on the bios they hand out. Not true. Many citizens claim they don’t read the bios or really only care about the top of the ticket.
It has been stated publicly that there were rumors that a waiver wouldn’t be granted this past inauguration. Is this what our local government has become…rumors now dictate to elected officials that they go through the painstaking task of changing the Charter so they can sleep at night? What’s next? We’re going to change the City Code based on hearsay, the Constitution over tittle-tattle?
Finally, if the proponents of removing Section 14 wanted a single sentence edited, then that is the question they should have placed on the ballot.
It would be irresponsible to delete an entire section that has served our city well.
On Election Day, vote “NO” on Question 2.
Art Gerckens
Second Ward Alderman, member of the Derby Charter Revision Commission
