Changing the charter

A committee being formed to review Cape Girardeau's city charter will find plenty of useful topics to consider. Among those mentioned so far are the need for an ethics commission, the procedure for raising fees and taxes without a vote, the city's ward system, uncontested elections and filling council vacancies. Other items surely will surface once the committee begins to meet.

How city government manages its affairs on behalf of taxpayers can certainly stand to be scrutinized from time to time. Any changes, additions or deletions to the charter, however, should be considered carefully. A close look at how effective the ward system has worked needs to be a high priority for the committee.

History of city government

Cape Girardeau's city government dates back to 1808, when it was officially incorporated. At that time, the city was divided into four wards, with an alderman from each ward. During the more than 100 years of aldermanic wards, bitter feuds broke out as wards competed for available dollars. In 1918, the city switched to a commission form of government. Responsibility for municipal operations was divided among commission members. This arrangement also resulted in squabbles as the police commissioner, for example, bickered with the public works commissioner for a bigger share of the city budget.

In 1965, Cape Girardeau adopted a council-city manager form of government. Council members were elected at large, and the mayor was appointed by the council from among its members. In 1981, when voters approved the city charter, the city adopted the council-manager arrangement with at-large elections. The home-rule charter allowed the city to write its own laws without being bound by state statutes regarding cities of its class.

A return to the ward system

Another change occurred in 1992 when voters amended the city charter to provide for the election of each council member to represent one of six wards, with the mayor elected at large. Proponents said some areas of the city, particularly the south side, weren't represented on the council, because most of the council members were from the city's more affluent northern neighborhoods. Backers also contended that more candidates would seek a council seat under the ward system. Opponents said the wards would foster a return to bickering among wards. There also were some worries that wards would present an opportunity for one faction to stack the council with its candidates.

The first three council members elected under the six-ward system were chosen in 1994. Both the hopes of proponents of the ward system and fears of opponents have, for the most part, failed to materialize. Council members have been more evenly distributed geographically, but most residents neither know which ward they're in or who their ward's council representative is. In the more than a decade the ward system has been in place, most council members have focused on citywide issues rather than the needs and concerns of their ward constituents.

Most issues affect the whole city

Given this track record, it appears reasonable to conclude that just about anyone elected to the city council would have the best interests of the whole city at heart, regardless of which neighborhood he or she resides in. Instead of limiting candidates by geography, it make sense to allow any and all candidates to put their names on the ballot -- and let voters decide which ones they want.

Coming: Future editorials will explore more topics likely to be considered by the city charter review committee.