CHARTER CHANGES

On Tuesday, Cape Girardeau voters will consider a dozen amendments to the city's charter.

These changes represent a chunk of reading for voters on Tuesday. To speed up the voting process, voters would be well advised to familiarize themselves with the amendments and what they mean. Each proposal will be voted on separately, and takes each proposed change takes only a simple majority for passage.

Most of these proposed changes are unnecessary or already covered by state laws or existing city ordinances. Below is an explanation of the proposed changes in the order they appear on the ballot.

-- The first amendment on the ballot would add a preamble to the city charter, which Charter Review Commission members think would set a tone for the whole charter. The preamble would hold the city and elected officials to a standard of excellence. This change seems unnecessary. Citizens already expect excellence at City Hall.

-- This change would lower residency requirements for anyone interested in running for council to two years from four years. The mayoral requirement would remain at four years. This change warrants approval by voters. The ward system hasn't encouraged great numbers of qualified candidates to run for office as proponents promised. This lowered requirement may encourage more participation by qualified newcomers.

-- This amendment would limit terms of the mayor and councilmen to two consecutive terms. There are limits now. The Southeast Missourian has supported congressional term limits because of the impact of career politicians in Washington, D.C. That's not the case in local government. Local voters can control term limits each election.

-- This next amendment is a housekeeping matter. The current charter states the mayor shall be a member of the council. This change would add the words "except as otherwise provided in this charter." This change was proposed by city staff. This is a confusing change, because either the mayor is or isn't a member of the council. There doesn't appear to be any compelling reason for the change.

-- This amendment has proved the most controversial. It would set up a local ethics commission to initiate investigations or follow up on citizen complaints. This grew out of a past indiscretion on the council that is no longer a problem. With state ethics requirements, this local ethics commission simply isn't needed.

-- Another amendment deals with the budget. It requires the council not only to operate the city on a balanced budget, but also allows for no deficit spending. The city already operates on a balanced-budget basis, and is likely to continue to do so with effective budget management. A change in the charter isn't needed.

-- The next change would change the policy of intra-fund loans. Currently, the city manager or council can transfer money between funds without much effort. Under this change, intra-fund loans must be repaid within a year. An ordinance would spell out the loan amount, payment of terms and schedule of payments. This too could be accomplished without a charter change.

-- An emergency reserve fund would be established under another charter amendment. It would require the fund to be 15 percent of the budget, which is an extraordinarily large amount. Under the current budget, the city would be required to set aside $3.4 million. That is a hefty amount in times of tight budgets. It also requires the city build up the entire reserve in three years, which might be difficult. The city budget already includes an emergency reserve fund. Again, this is a matter of good budgetary management and shouldn't require a charter change.

-- This amendment would set a 5 percent cap on fee increases in any given year. It pretty well mirrors a council ordinance already in place. But commission members think a charter change would be harder for the council to override. An ordinance can be changed by a majority of council members. While the 5 percent fee-increase limit is sound, the council should be allowed some flexibility, particularly on user fees. Larger fee increases may be needed in enterprise funds -- operations that pay for themselves when costs go up. And what about programs such as the golf course, swimming pool or recreation programs? Why should the city be forced to dip into precious reserves if a slightly higher user fee is needed to cover costs of a targeted group? Good government offers good leaders some flexibility. This amendment is not needed.

-- Another amendment would require the city to gather all its debt together into a public disclosure document. This document would be a page in the annual budget. The city does provide this information, but it is scattered throughout the budget. Charter Review Commission member Keith Russell, an accounting professor at Southeast Missouri State University, said it took several hours for him to assimilate all the city debt in the budget. That seems to indicate the information isn't all that consumer friendly. It would also have to be published along with an election notice if voters were being asked to approve additional debt for the city. This seems to be a reasonable change.

-- This amendment deals with granting of franchises. It is another housekeeping matter. This amendment would take out the word "water" from city franchise agreements, because the water department is now city owned. It should be approved.

-- The final charter amendment was recommended by the city staff to bring the charter into compliance with state statutes. It deals with notification requirements for lawsuits brought against the city. This technical change should be approved by voters.

The city charter is like a constitution. Voters should be very careful before tinkering with a proven document that works. Charter changes are difficult to do and undo. Voters should be careful about wholesale changes in the charter when they go to the polls Tuesday.