Proposed Euclid Charter Changes

On May 4, the voters in Euclid will be deciding on changes to our charter. Three amendments are proposed. The ballot only has space for the proposed change. Without knowing the current language, a voter cannot make an intelligent choice.This article will attempt to provide information about these amendments. 

The amendments will be listed on the ballot as “Issues 25, 26, and 27.”  Issue 25 requests that the offices of all members of council, and the mayor begin on January 1 and end on December 31. The charter currently states that those terms begin on December 1 and end on November 30. If approved, it would allow a longer period of time for a “lame duck” council person or mayor.  A ‘lame duck’ is the term applied to an official when they are not reelected, but they still have power to pass laws and effect change in the city. Sometimes these officials use this time to act upon unpopular issues because there is no fear of reprisal from the voters since they already are out of a job. The election for these offices takes place at the general election in November. Currently, a person voted out of office has a short time, usually only one more council meeting, before they are out of office. If Issue 25 passes, the official would still have a few meetings to enact laws and affect policy, sometimes not for the pubic good.  

Issues 26 and 27 relate to recall elections. A recall election is held if citizens decide that an elected official should be removed from office before their term is complete. The reason for a recall could be anything. Citizens usually attempt a recall if they believe that the official is not working in the community's best interest or has committed a grievous act. It should not be brought lightly. There has been only one attempted recall in Euclid since the charter went into effect in January, 1952. In 2004 mayor Bill Cervenik survived a recall election. A recall election would come about thusly; a citizen, or group, must submit to the Clerk of Council a petition stating in 200 words or less, the reason for removal of said official. The petition must be signed by a least 15% of the electors from the last general election. If 9,000 voters turned out in the last election, 1350 registered voters must sign the petition. The vote then goes to all to decide.  As you can see, this is not an easy task. Nor has it been recklessly used in Euclid. Issue 26 would increase the number of petition signers to 25%. In the above example, 2250 persons would be required. 

Currently, the charter does not set a time limit for obtaining signatures on the petition. Issue 27 would require a ‘declaration of intent’ be filed and then imposes a 45 day time limit to obtain the required number of signatures. Imagine trying to obtain 2250 signatures in only a month and a half. If passed, the changes proposed in Issues 26 and 27 would make it extremely difficult for the citizens to remove an official from office. 

As stated, a recall should not be taken lightly. Historically, in Euclid, this process has not been abused. There may be a time when it is needed. Politicians should realize that the electorate has the power to remove them from office. Given that we just increased the term of office for members of council to four years, we could be stuck with a rotten council member or mayor for some time until their term is over.   

So what is a ‘city charter’? It is similar to the U.S. Constitution or the state constitution. The charter provides a framework for local government. It details the organization of council. It details how public meetings are held. It lists terms for elected officials and how appointments of department heads are assigned. It contains rules for the removal of elected officials. It contains rules about taxation and salaries of elected officials. It is an important document. 

So changes to the charter should not be proposed without consideration. Changes to the charter are proposed by a “Charter Review Commission.”  If the mayor or members of council feel changes to the charter are needed, they select members of the community to sit on this commission. The members are supposed to objectively examine the charter and determine if any changes should be put to the voters. An example may be the salaries of council. Perhaps it’s been twenty years since the salary was increased. The commission decides that a raise is in order.  So it goes to the vote of the people. 

Vendettas should not be cause for changes to the charter.  An example of this may be that council doesn’t agree with the administration over a lawsuit against the city. City council decides to ignore the recommendation of the law director and they hire an outside attorney to examine the case. The administration is not happy.  As a result, a charter change is proposed to give all power of legal matters to the law director.  This type of personal agenda is bad for the city.  Sadly, it happens in many communities. 

Ultimately, the power to alter our charter rests with you, the voter.  An informed, intelligent vote insures that this important document is not sculpted into a tool that takes away citizens rights and gives unlimited power to those elected to ‘public' office.

Read More on Political
Volume 1, Issue 1, Posted 12:45 PM, 05.20.2010