This week’s “My turn”
column is by Oneonta Mayor
John S. Nader.
It is long past time
to review, revise and
rewrite our city charter.
The document is obsolete
and too often hinders
rather than facilitates
effective, representative
government.
As New York’s Department
of State notes,
“A good charter should
provide a clear distribution
of the powers of city
government and a clear
description of the duties
and powers of municipal
officials.” Our charter
does neither.
Therefore, consistent
with New York State
Home Rule Law, I intend
this year to establish a
charter review
commission.
The commission
should
review
the entire
charter
and prepare
a new
or significantly revised
version. Our charter diffuses
authority among numerous
entities without
sufficiently empowering
those who assume dayto-
day responsibility for
public administration
and policy.
Simply put, the
document’s lines of accountability
are unrealistic,
the duties of elected
officials are obscure; it
establishes a chief executive
position without
sufficiently empowering
the office.
A citizen can read the
city charter and find that
Oneonta’s form of government
defies description.
Although the city’s
form of government has
at times been called a
weak-mayor system, this
characterization is inaccurate.
It is far more accurate
to view the charter as the
by-product of the early
20th century, when many
localities empowered
boards and commissions
whose members were
certainly conscientious,
but plainly unelected. In
fact, the most significant
of those commissions no
longer even exist.
Unlike our federal
constitution, which provides
a clear separation
of powers, the city
charter seems as likely to
confuse as to clarify.
In one instance the
lines of authority overlap
so wildly that within two
paragraphs, the charter
actually requires
the supervisor of parks
and streets to report to
four separate entities:
a board, a commission,
the city engineer and the
mayor.
Another element of
the charter is nearly
comical. Among the few
explicit duties delegated
to individual Common
Council members is to
serve as “fence viewers”
who “shall possess all the
powers and authority in
respect to the division
of fences or walls within
their ward …”
In other instances, the
duties enumerated for
some of the appointed
boards and commission
are better defined and
detailed than those of the
elected Common Council
members. Sadly, the
process for adopting a
city budget is almost as
quaint and dated as the
fence viewers’ role.
Indeed, the formal
role of the mayor _ the
one city-wide elected
official _ in the budget
formulation process is
quite limited. More importantly,
the budget provisions
of the charter still
include a role for commissions
that have long
since been disbanded.
A city charter is
plainly not a topic that
prompts significant attention.
So why does it
matter? Our charter is
simply not adequate to
the needs of a modern,
progressive city. Officials
from other municipalities
are startled to learn
of the fragmentation that
can frustrate timely action
here.
A modern charter
should empower city officials,
particularly the
chief executive, to act
on behalf of their constituents.
The mayor is
designated as the chief
executive and charged
with “exerting a constant
supervision and control
over ... all city officers,”
but is provided neither
the time nor the means to
do so.
More importantly, the
vital roles of a modern
mayor in working with
other levels of government,
sustaining the
city’s tax base and infrastructure,
stewarding
its cultural and natural
resources, and establishing
and implementing a
vision and direction for
the city are crucial but
completely unrecognized.
The time for charter
review is now. Changes
both simple and substantial
are needed. City
officials attempted this
without success in both
the 1960s and 1970s.
In reviewing the minutes
from the commission
that worked in the
late 1970s, it is clear that
many of those elected
and appointed officials
who spoke before the
commission agreed that
the present structure is
more likely to restrain
prompt and timely action
in the public interest
than to facilitate such
action.
Now more than ever,
the current environment
should prompt us to
look to the future. Real
transformations are at
work. We see this daily
in government, in some
neighborhoods, and in
the rapidly changing economic
environment.
We are not immune
to these trends. In the
coming years, many cities
will find it increasingly
difficult to sustain
basic infrastructure and
services. Even an economic
recovery by itself
will not return us to a
comfortable place from
the past.
Charter revision is
no substitute for having
conscientious elected
officials who serve the
common good rather than
narrow, parochial interests.
Clearly the original
authors of the charter
knew this.
However, the organizational
structure of city
government needs to be
adjusted so that we can
better serve our citizens
and our posterity. Now
that we have celebrated
our centennial, let’s turn
our attention to making
the charter of the city
consistent with the need
for government to be responsive,
nimble and efficient.
It is long overdue.
To write for “My turn,”
contact Daily Star Publisher
Tanya Shalor at
tshalor@thedailystar.com
or 432-1000, ext. 214.
