This letter is provided as opinion/commentary from the authors. You can submit your own:editor@citydesk.org
Foundational changes got minimum hearings, little public input.
The recent changes proposed to the City Charter by several City Councilors require more public input and education than allowed by the current council president. These changes would reduce the votes needed to win council and mayoral elections without a runoff from the present 50% to 40% and increase the power of the City Council to hire and fire key members of any administration. At the last council meeting, the “public comment” was late-night, and held long after many members of the public had left.
When major changes to the City Charter involving elections and the balance of power between the various branches have been contemplated in the past, they have been thoroughly vetted in advance by a Charter Review Task Force. In 2009, for example, a 15- member blue ribbon Charter task force held 18 meetings (several of them televised), allowing ample time for public suggestions and testimony. The result was spirited discussion and civic engagement on the election code, councilor and mayoral salaries, confirmation of mayoral appointments by the council and methods for amending the Charter, which was largely written in 1971. Proposed changes were referred to the council and many were adopted either there or at the ballot box.
To be clear, I do not support these changes to the Charter. I don’t understand why we’re revisiting an issue that voters decidedly approved 10 years ago when this council has pressing issues like homelessness, public safety, and housing to wrestle with.
All that said, a regular review of what amounts to our City’s constitution is a good idea. That’s why I’ve introduced a resolution (R-24-58) to create such a task force. The measure will be heard at the June 3 City Council meeting, and I invite the public to weigh in.
Like the 2009 task force, this proposed group would include 15 members, one member selected by each Councilor, one at-large member selected by the Council to chair the task force, and five members selected by the Mayor. It would be staffed by both the City Council and the Mayor’s office. The current proposals to reduce the number of votes needed to be elected mayor or councilor without a runoff and those that would shift the balance of power between the council and the mayor would be topics, but the task force could consider other updates as well.
Yes, establishing a Blue-Ribbon Charter Review Task Force will slow down the amendment process. But what exactly is the rush? Is it to make sure that the reduced threshold for winning a council or mayoral election from 50% to 40% will be in place before the next city election? If the council-initiated measure passes, it will affect current councilors and mayors, reducing the number of votes required to win. Do we really believe that is ok? It may be legal, but it certainly seems like a bad idea.
The 2009 Task Force was chaired by a district judge, and its recommendations, by in large, were adopted. Although its members did not always agree, it was a way to educate the public and forge a consensus, from which recommendations emerged. That’s a far better way of amending our Charter than through a rushed process, which excluded committee hearings, lasted just one month, and allowed for only the bare minimum of public input.
Joaquin Baca (D-District 2) represents the Greater Downtown, North Valley, West Side, and Kirtland portions of Albuquerque on the City Council.
Letter to the Editor: City Charter Amendments Need Review by Blue Ribbon Task Force
Share this:
This letter is provided as opinion/commentary from the authors.
You can submit your own: editor@citydesk.org
Foundational changes got minimum hearings, little public input.
The recent changes proposed to the City Charter by several City Councilors require more public input and education than allowed by the current council president. These changes would reduce the votes needed to win council and mayoral elections without a runoff from the present 50% to 40% and increase the power of the City Council to hire and fire key members of any administration. At the last council meeting, the “public comment” was late-night, and held long after many members of the public had left.
When major changes to the City Charter involving elections and the balance of power between the various branches have been contemplated in the past, they have been thoroughly vetted in advance by a Charter Review Task Force. In 2009, for example, a 15- member blue ribbon Charter task force held 18 meetings (several of them televised), allowing ample time for public suggestions and testimony. The result was spirited discussion and civic engagement on the election code, councilor and mayoral salaries, confirmation of mayoral appointments by the council and methods for amending the Charter, which was largely written in 1971. Proposed changes were referred to the council and many were adopted either there or at the ballot box.
To be clear, I do not support these changes to the Charter. I don’t understand why we’re revisiting an issue that voters decidedly approved 10 years ago when this council has pressing issues like homelessness, public safety, and housing to wrestle with.
All that said, a regular review of what amounts to our City’s constitution is a good idea. That’s why I’ve introduced a resolution (R-24-58) to create such a task force. The measure will be heard at the June 3 City Council meeting, and I invite the public to weigh in.
Like the 2009 task force, this proposed group would include 15 members, one member selected by each Councilor, one at-large member selected by the Council to chair the task force, and five members selected by the Mayor. It would be staffed by both the City Council and the Mayor’s office. The current proposals to reduce the number of votes needed to be elected mayor or councilor without a runoff and those that would shift the balance of power between the council and the mayor would be topics, but the task force could consider other updates as well.
Yes, establishing a Blue-Ribbon Charter Review Task Force will slow down the amendment process. But what exactly is the rush? Is it to make sure that the reduced threshold for winning a council or mayoral election from 50% to 40% will be in place before the next city election? If the council-initiated measure passes, it will affect current councilors and mayors, reducing the number of votes required to win. Do we really believe that is ok? It may be legal, but it certainly seems like a bad idea.
The 2009 Task Force was chaired by a district judge, and its recommendations, by in large, were adopted. Although its members did not always agree, it was a way to educate the public and forge a consensus, from which recommendations emerged. That’s a far better way of amending our Charter than through a rushed process, which excluded committee hearings, lasted just one month, and allowed for only the bare minimum of public input.
Joaquin Baca (D-District 2) represents the Greater Downtown, North Valley, West Side, and Kirtland portions of Albuquerque on the City Council.