To the editor:
The proposed City Charter changes come at the same time as we see proposals federally that would direct more powers into the hands of the President. It is a timely question given the present chaos in Washington that threatens the basic rights of almost every American.
Historically, we have comments made over the years about such proposals:
Lord Acton in the 1850s: “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
John Adams, 2nd U.S. President, told Americans that we were a nation whose laws were founded not on who you were, but what the law was, because you were judged by the law: no one is above the law: “We are a nation of laws, not of men.”
In the Declaration of Independence, one reason, among many, that signers contended was: “A prince whose character is thus marked, which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be a ruler of a free people.”
Mistakenly, we often make laws and charters with the expectation that just people will continue to be our leaders. But that is not always what happens.
So we adopt provisions that install a balance of power to offset attempts at grasping power by a potential tyrant.
So in the midst of the quest for a stronger mayor’s Charter, how do we guarantee a balance of power?
The last Charter Commission was strongly influenced by those who wanted to give department heads strong power to retain their positions and not be discharged when a new mayor was elected and installed her own set of people without any recognition of those who have dedicated their competence and their careers to service to the city.
The present one has strong representation from those who believe we need greater power in the Mayor’s office
Should we adopt the present rationale of the president to appoint friends dedicated to him alone and not because of merit? Though we might trust a present mayor, we could have a successor without his standards who would dump everyone without any just cause or due process procedure.
The proposal also calls for filling vacancies for elected officials not by the next person on the ballot as practice and precedent allow, but by declaring ineligible anyone who didn’t get twenty percent of the vote in their election. I certainly don’t want a frivolous vote of five Donald Ducks, but even someone who got five percent worked hard, people supported and expected their vote or their candidate to be meaningful and respected. Some might call it a method of voter suppression!
Without a full understanding of how the Proposed Charter would address these issues, I would hope that the Council would either table the issue for the time being or vote to oppose it.
Our mayors have performed their duties, honoring the responsibilities entrusted to them. Let’s adopt a Charter that will guide future mayors to act accordingly.
Thanks to the Charter Commission for its diligence in producing its documents.
John Coleman Walsh, Esq.
Lynn
