Last updated 3/14/2006
Editorials               Site Home
 
Questions on the Ballot for Charter Changes March 14, 2007 A number of revisions were made to the Forest Heights Town Charter in November 2005 by the Town Council, and a group of citizens circulated a petition to place the questions on a ballot for a referendum. Although the petition contained the number of signatures required by State Law, a Judge ruled against placing them on a ballot on procedural grounds. The citizens then re-circulated the petition, and in January 2007, a Judge's ruling resulted in 10 of the 13 questions on the ballot for March 14, 2007.

The following is our review of these question an our opinion as to which ones should be voted "YES," i.e., to make the charter change, or "NO," to leave the Charter the way it is:

Question #1 Add a Recall Provision We believe this provision should be added to the Charter and we recommend voting YES to question #1. This provision will permit the citizens to circulate a petition that a special election should be held to determine whether an elected official should be put out of office (recalled).

Question #2 Restore the Mayor as Chief Executive This question would restore earlier (pre November 2005) charter wording which declares the Mayor as the Chief Executive Officer and head of the administrative branch of the Town's government and we recommend voting YES  to Question #2.

Question #3 Give the Mayor the Authority to Appoint, Supervise and Dismiss Employees This question would remove current Charter wording that places much of the authority to hire and fire in the hands of the Council, and place it back in the hands of the Mayor. For the most part, career Town employees are protected by Article 1.4  of the Town Code of Ordinances which requires a hearing and Council approval of dismissal of any full-time town employee. However the November 2005 change to the Charter was made when the Council perceived the Mayor was improperly involved with the Police Department, and she then subsequently dismissed the Chief of Police. The current wording of the Town Charter does add an administrative hurdle for a Mayor seeking to dismiss a Department Head, but we believe in light of the events over the last year, that is a "good thing." We therefore recommend voting NO to question #3.

Question #4 Give the Mayor Complete Supervision Over the Financial Administration of the Town The November 2005 changes to the Charter intended that the Council have more direct involvement in the administration of the Town's finances. However, we do not perceive that there was any improvement in the Town's finances since November 2005, and in our view have degraded even further than they had in the years prior to 2005. We believe the key to improving the Town's finances is for the Town to hire a competent Treasurer (preferably a CPA). The Council, however, must have access to the Treasurer and be able to have oversight, not supervision, of the Treasurer and the Mayor in their management of the Town's finances. We therefore recommend voting YES to question #4.

Question #5 Restore the Mayor as the Direct Supervisor of the Treasurer As with Question #4 above, we believe the proper procedure is for the Council to provide oversight of the Treasurer's function, not supervise the Treasurer. By that we mean is that the Treasurer must provide financial information through the Mayor if requested by the Council. If the Mayor directs the Treasurer not to prepare the information requested by the Council, the Mayor would then possibly be in violation of Charter section 18(d) which directs the Mayor to "perform such other duties as may be prescribed by this Charter or as may be required of him by the Council, not inconsistent with this Charter." Under the Code of Conduct section of the Charter, which is also on the ballot, the Mayor could be suspended for refusal to cooperate with the Council. We therefore recommend voting YES to question #5.

Question #6 Restore the Mayor's Supervision Over the Treasurer's Authority Following the same reasoning we provided to Questions #4 and #5, we recommend voting YES to question #5.

Question #7 Restore the Mayor as Countersigner on Town Checks. We believe that a competent Treasurer and the Mayor should be adequate safeguard for Town check signing authority. The Council has a right to review checks that have been signed under its oversight authority, which should provide adequate safeguards for Town funds. We therefore recommend voting YES to question #7.

Question #8 Repeal the Code of Conduct Section 33-93 The Code of Conduct gives the Council the authority to suspend a Mayor or Council member who violates the Town Charter (subsection a) or who is charged with a crime (section b). Section c allows the Council to suspend an elected official who is convicted of a crime. The Maryland State Constitution provides for the removal from office of any public official convicted of a felony, so section c primarily confers to the Council the authority to expel an official from office after a misdemeanor offense. We recommend voting NO to question #7.

Question #9 Repeal Section 33-92 This section defines the terms "Mayor and Council" to mean Mayor and Council as a collective body, rather that individually as the Mayor on one hand, and the Council on the other hand. The issue that generated the wording being placed in the Charter in November 2005 was the possible interpretation of  Charter section 33-90 which reads "An ordinance is defined as a legislative act of the Mayor and Council and as a regulation of a general permanent nature. A resolution is defined as an act of the Mayor and Council of temporary nature." The problem lies in that if both the Mayor and Council must agree to an ordinance or resolution, then the Mayor would have absolute veto power over any passed by the Council. This is far greater authority than the President of the United States and the Governor of Maryland have. When the President of Governor vetoes legislation, they can be overridden by a two thirds vote of Congress or the Maryland General Assembly respectively. Given the foregoing interpretation of the "Mayor and Council" phrase which appears throughout the Town Charter, there would be no provision for the Council to muster a super majority to override the Mayor's veto.

We do not believe the Town Charter was written to be interpreted in that way, but the possibility exists that a Court could interpret it to give the Mayor veto without recourse to being overturned by the Council. We therefore recommend voting NO to question #9.

Question #10 Restore Provision of the Clerk to be the Same Person as the Treasurer and Remove Council Supervision of the Clerk/Treasurer This November 2005 Charter change was instituted in response to the Council's perception that the Mayor (both in 2005 and prior terms) was abusing .her authority over the Town Clerk and appointing the Town Clerk to act as the Treasurer for indefinite periods of time. We agree with the need to correct some of those abuses, but we do not agree with a Council person supervising the Town Clerk. We therefore recommend voting YES to question #10, but hope that the Council in the future will use its oversight authority to limit abuses of the Mayor over the Clerk's and Treasurer's positions.

In summary, we are recommending voting YES to questions 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10, and NO to questions 3, 8 and 9.

More Editorials from Previous Editions