CITY CHARTER IDEAS MERIT CONSIDERATION

For the past 18 months, a council-appointed commission has been reviewing Cape Girardeau's city charter. Commission members found a basically sound document with room for fine-tuning. The result: 11 proposed amendments.

Amending the charter isn't a matter to be taken lightly. Both short- and long-term implications must be considered. It is a testament to the thorough and conscientious work of the city's Charter Commission, which drafted the original document in 1981, that so few changes were even considered 13 years later. Last year voters approved the only other change to the charter. A petition initiative prompted the move from at-large to ward representation on the city council. That change was the catalyst for the formation of the charter review committee to consider other possible amendments.

The commission's recommended amendments have merit and would ensure city accountability. Many of the proposals deal with finances, which captures the public's attention at all levels of government. Here are some of the proposals:

-- A vote would be required for any city fee or tax increase greater than 5 percent in a year. The council approved a similar ordinance this year, but a charter amendment would lock future councils into this prudent limit on increases.

-- A reserve fund for budget emergencies. The recommendation was unanimously adopted by the commission. The city already maintains some money in reserve, but the amendment would mandate a fund equal to 15 percent of the annual city budget.

-- Require the city manager to provide a debt statement with the budget each year. This would give the public a better idea of the city's indebtedness and bond obligations.

-- An ethics commission to review complaints and investigate possible conflicts of interest and other government ethics violations. When such violations appeared in the past, the council often was uneasy censuring one of its own. The independent ethics commission is a good idea.

Underscoring the merit of the recommendations are the ideas the committee rejected. One was would have required a retention election every four years for the city manager, assistant city manager and other top officials. There is a council election every two years, and the council has the full authority to hire and fire city officials. The pressure to make city administrators who aren't elected accountable ought to be placed on elected representatives.

Another rejected idea would have required 80 percent of all riverboat gambling revenue be used to reduce fees and taxes. This appears to be a good idea on the surface, but gambling revenue is unreliable when a city has growing state and federal mandates in water and sewage treatment, waste collection and disposal as well as other obligations.

A third rejected recommendation was to require the hiring of a "professional city manager." This proposal seemed to be aimed at removing City Manager J. Ronald Fischer, who was hired in 1988. Amendments to the charter must be debated in light of the city's long-term interests, not as a forum for personal vendettas.

By rebuffing these ideas, the commission's recommendations carry greater weight.

It is important for the city council to consider each of the committee's 11 recommended charter amendments rather than lump them together as a package. Voters, who will have the final say on the changes, also should be given the opportunity to consider each item separately.

The committee has worked diligently to come up with some worthy suggestions. The council should move swiftly to give voters an opportunity to make a good city charter even better.