Charter Issues on the Ballot - Watch Out!

[Mark Timieski]

Thanks for trying to sort these out a bit. I had a rough idea about the issues involved in these issues, but was still pretty vague after looking at the ballot language.

I just showed up to a few of the review meetings to see what was going on, more of a fly on the wall. I was really impressed with the incredible amount of time that the review board put into going over the charter. It seemed that for a while the review was going on every night.

I guess the discussion on Issue 57 would be specifically involving the engineer position. There has been a bit of discussion (at least amongst beer and coffee drinkers at the bela dubby last night) that the engineer should be able to make long term and possibly politically unpopular decisions about the infrastructure of the city. It’s my understanding that the classified service offers some definite isolation from politics.

[Mary McGraw]

I am an Assistant Law Director for the City, and was the liaison for the 2004 Charter Review Commission. I will attempt to give some background and answer some of the questions posted. An excellent source of information is the handouts prepared by the Lakewood League of Women Voters. The League had an issues forum last week that was very informative. I would expect that the literature they prepared will be available at the candidates night October 27th at City Hall.

First, all three of the proposed charter amendments were part of the recommendations of the Charter Review Commission. When Council discussed the recommendations this summer, these three were chosen to be placed on the November ballot.

The ballot language for each of the three amendments was re-worked extensively by the administration, especially for Issue 59, to ensure that the ballot reflected both the portions of the Charter that would change, as well as the portions that would not. The correct language for all three issues is now on the City website at and also can be found on the Board of Elections website. The delay in getting the ballot language on that site obviously led to a lot of confusion.

Issue 57 - This proposed charter amendment clarifies the unclassified positions listed in the Charter. Some of the changes account for the way things already are, such as removing the employees of Lakewood Hospital from the Charter as City employees, or spelling out that the employees of the Lakewood Municipal Court and the attorneys employed by the Law Department are unclassified. The amendment would also allow the Mayor and Council the flexibility to have a small number of employees who are responsive to them, rather than having only civil service employees. The amendment also makes the position of City Engineer closer to a Director, recognizing the increasing importance of that position as the City faces more and more infrastructure issues.

Issue 58 - Both the Mayor and Council appoint the members of the Civil Service Commission, and there are requirements in the Charter that no more than two members be of the same political party. The provision for a biennial report on mayoral and council salaries from the Civil Service Commission is already part of the Charter. Currently, the report is referred to Council, and there is no requirement that anything be done with it. The Charter Review Commission thought it appropriate to require some action by Council on the report, and believed the report to be a good starting point for a discussion of the salaries of elected officials. A number of the members of the Charter Review Commission expressed concern that salaries that have not increased in 20 years can be a deterrent to getting good candidates for public office. We as citizens want good service from our elected officials, and we have to be willing to pay them a reasonable salary. While no one should be able to get rich as a Council member or as the Mayor, the Council salary of $7,000/year has been deemed too low by the last five reports of the Civil Service Commission. The same is true of the salary for the office of Mayor, which is lower than that of just about every other mayor of the twenty largest cities in the area. In population, Lakewood is the third largest city in the county.

As Steve Davis pointed out, no raise can take effect within the current term of office.

Issue 59 would return the Charter to the format it had for most of Lakewood's history, and would allow the long-term planning that is so often discussed as a key to effective government. The cost efficiencies are at least 30% when the replacement of water or sewer lines coincides with street reconstruction projects. A good example is the reconstruction of Franklin Avenue from West 117th to Bunts this past year. Much of the cost of the road reconstruction was borne by the County, and the City took advantage of the situation to replace the lines and avoid tearing up the street again a few years later. The ability to plan is greatly hampered by not being able to project revenues beyond the next election.

Mark, to answer your questions (at least I hope you will consider these to be answers) The Charter refers to the classified and unclassified service, ie positions, rather than unclassified and classified employees. Issue 57 would not increase the number of unclassified employees significantly. The Charter states that all employees not specifically listed as unclassified are classified, so the mix would be quite similar to how it is currently.

The Charter would never list names of employees. The specific positions and job titles within the City can change along with the needs of the City, with technology and with shifting priorities.

There is no quick and easy answer to your last question. In general, a classified position requires that the employee has taken some kind of civil service examination, either competitive or non-competitive.

I hope some of this very long post will be helpful.

Mary McGraw

[Mark Timieski]

[Mary McGraw]

Mark:

The attorneys in the Law Department are not currently civil service employees, and never have been. Like many of the other parts of Issue 57, this was spelled out for the sake of clarity. The Charter Review Commission discussed the idea of whether the attorney should be civil service, and recommended against that. Mayor George has only one civil service employee in his office currently, his secretary. The Council has one other employee beside the Clerk.

The City Engineer is currently a civil service position in Lakewood. That position seems to vary from city to city as to being civil service.

Mary McGraw

[Dan Shields]

I would encourage Lakewood citizens to Vote Yes on Issue 57, Issue 58, and Issue 59! Steve Davis and Mary McGraw have outlined many of the specifics of these issues, and I would encourage all voters to read and study the language for themselves. However, as a member of the 2004 Charter Review Commission, I can attest that these issues were thoroughly discussed for almost two years, first by the Charter Review Commission, and then by City Council. Nine members of the Commission and seven members of Council, from very diverse backgrounds, agreed that these changes to the Lakewood Charter would help city government operate
more efficiently.

[Dr. Larry Keller]

Lynn:

Not sure why water rates will be diverted under our proposed charter amendment. They could also be diverted under the original I would assume. However, such revenue usually goes into a specific fund and any diversion would be easy to track. The need is to refurbish the water and sewer systems. As this is costly, and not a project for direct voter approval in my mind as most will lack the information and elections are seldom effective systems for conveying information, I would hope the amendment is approved.

As all the infrastructure needs will be costly, and any diversion is to be stopped, a professional government is the best remedy. Our City Manager charter with Article V devoted to a professional financial system is a better protection than the vagaries of a referendum.

Nothing like timely posting as the ballots were cast a couple of hours ago. But perhaps we can bring the discussion to some closure.

I hope to lurk more often on these pages and love the discussion. Nothing like honorable politics to renew one's faith in democratic, republican government.

[Stephen Calhoun]

Dr. Keller, this caused in me cognitive dissonance:

not a project for direct voter approval in my mind as most will lack the information and elections are seldom effective systems for conveying information

Nothing like honorable politics to renew one's faith in democratic, republican government.

[dl meckes]

Dr. Keller, this caused in me cognitive dissonance:

Nothing like honorable politics to renew one's faith in democratic, republican government.

Since many republics are democratic, what's your point?

[Stephen Calhoun]

James Madison. Federalist Papers #39

What, then, are the distinctive characters of the republican form?… If we resort for a criterion… we may define a republic to be… a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it…. It is sufficient for such a government that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people; and that they hold their appointments by either of the tenures just specified.

As this is costly, and not a project for direct voter approval in my mind as most will lack the information and elections are seldom effective systems for conveying information,

The question begged in judging that there are issues for which the conveyance of information is of such a character that the central mechanism enabled to cause, to quote Madison, "a government [sic] derived from the great body of the society" via elections obviously has to do with decisions made directly by voters versus decisions made by their representatives in a "democratic, republican government".

But, since the elected representatives are citizens, are elected in part for reasons of information, the question is:

What kinds of information are prevented from being effectively conveyed in the election system?

And, furthermore, are these types of information of a different nature and class than the information effectively conveyed in elections, and, moreover, different in type than information effectively conveyed in electing representatives who, presumably, will be in a more optimum position, (vis a vis) these classes of information in deciding on issues such as the one Dr. Keller raises?

***

I'd be very curious to learn what the differences are between informations effectively conveyed in the democratic republican system Dr. Keller praises while at the same time he judges the electoral aspect of this same system less capable with respect to decision making which requires a class or kind of information he hasn't fully described.

Thus my dissonance in noting the problem incurred if it turns out that this differentiation of kinds of information doesn't really hold because it turns out that in electing representatives to make decisions for us all citizens might use to a lesser or greater extent the same or more complex type/kind [+] of information they'd use to make decisions about water, etc.

This could be looked at differently: why not give the same body of information to citizens as you would to citizen/representatives, and, in both cases, hope for better not worse?

If elections pose obstacles to effective 'conveyance,' and if the strong case is made that this is so, what do you do about it? Madison expresses faith too.

Under what circumstances should that faith yield? Dr. Keller has implied there is a better modality for decision making in specific cases than direct decision making given (1) inadequacy of supplied information to voters and their minds; (2) the implied lack of capability of elections for conveying crucial information.

Yet, this argument contains a bundle of weighty assumptions. Are they correct? What can be done about #1 and #2? If something can be done, why not retain faith and do something?

Much practically rides on the optimal here because, all the time, representatives refuse to avail themselves of the 'complex' information whereas nothing prevents an informed citizenry from being better informed than their representatives. Suggesting that decisions are better made 'somewhere else' requires justification. "as most will lack the information and elections are seldom effective systems for conveying information" is only going to be true in specific, contextualized cases. I'd like to know more.

+
(From the perspective of logical typing of information, it may be hard to escape the possibility that election of representatives implicates the most complicated and diverse classes of information of them all!)