My View: City Charter Trumps Council Rules
Section 19 allows mayor to speak at meetings.
In 1915, the City of Salem adopted a charter which specified a Plan B form of municipal government.
That charter established a mayor-council system with a strong mayor form and a unicameral council. It is the most prevalent form of larger city government in the country.
Section 18 in the General Provisions states in paragraph two that, "the city council shall, from time to time, establish rules for its proceedings."
Section 19 states clearly that, "the mayor may attend and address the city council in person or through the head of a department, or a member of the board, upon any subject."
In no place in the section of the charter does it say that any individual councilor or the council as a whole can prevent a sitting mayor from speaking. There is also no provision allowing the council to change any aspect of the charter. That must be done by an elected charter commission. We last had a charter review in 2003.
Over the last year or more, we have had multiple episodes of city councilors preventing or attempting to prevent the mayor from addressing the council. Each time Section 18 was used as the basis for that procedure.
I am not a lawyer. My grandfather Hussey guided me away from that profession when I was very young. As a result, I seldom try to read between the lines. The council over the years has had many lawyers in its chambers, including the classic "barracks lawyer" types. Lawyers, and those that think they are lawyers, like to try and read between the lines.
Some years ago, our current mayor used a similar tactic to prevent her predecessor from speaking when she represented Ward Five. That may have seemed to be the right thing to do at the time, but perhaps she set a precedent that has come back to her. I will leave it to the lawyers to discuss whether or not the circumstances are the same now as they were then.
It is fully within the power of the council president to set a time limit on how long or even how many times within a meeting a mayor or anyone else can speak. That can be established at the beginning of any speaking period within a particular meeting. That would probably be the easiest and best way to handle things.
The council could also meet to amend the council rules as Section 18 allows them. Within those rules they could define specific time limits and also limit how many times a mayor or other person can address the council within a specific meeting.
There is another option available. We could have another charter review commission. That is a elective process and can be a very cumbersome task. Ask any of those who served in 2003.
Be advised, however, members of the city council. Whatever rules that are established, you may find that sometime down the road, when you have successfully run for the Salem corner office, your own efforts before the council may be made more difficult as a result.
In that case, it will be déjà vu all over again.
Wendy
8:32 am on Monday, June 4, 2012
Well said and informative. The Council members should know the charter inside and out, no excuse. Ego's need to be kept in check.
David Pelletier
9:21 am on Monday, June 4, 2012
Thank you Tom Furey for scaring seniors over the cost of a budget analyst and sinking the whole charter reform effort because Stanley didn't like it. What a waste of space.
Don Nadeau
10:14 am on Monday, June 4, 2012
It seems a dose of good old Yankee New England practicality is called for. Procedure must serve substance.
James R. Willis Jr.
10:48 am on Monday, June 4, 2012
The problem is that Section 18 conflicts with Section 19. The Council, per Section 18, has a rule that requires unanimous consent for a member of the public to speak. Thus one member can block the Mayor or any other person from speaking. Do rules promulgated under Section 18 trump the provisions of Section 19? If you ask five different lawyers you may be able to get five different answers. As a practical matter, is it really so important to the city that we must convene a charter review commission? There are more important issues...
William Legault
11:14 am on Monday, June 4, 2012
Thanks James. The answers the five lawyers would give would be dependent on who is paying for their opinion. That is both the strength, and the flaw n the system.
I do not feel that the sections conflict at all.
Section 19 gives a sitting mayor the right to speak while section 18 allows the council to set rules. No where in the charter does it say that the council can establish a rule that conflicts with or changes another part of the charter. All charter changes must be done by elected commission.
The wording is clear, the intent is clear. Let people, a mayor included speak, and set limits on time and frequency with an individual meeting.
James R. Willis Jr.
1:52 pm on Monday, June 4, 2012
Bill, I have to respectfully disagree with your assertion that it's clear-cut wording. Frankly, as you note, if someone came to my office and was looking to pay my firm to evaluate it, an opinion could be written either way, The "may" in Section 19 is not a "shall" and does not, again depending on one's opinion of Section 18, automatically confer upon the Council an obligation to let the Mayor speak. In Plan B government, if you consider it akin to separation of powers and note that the Council and Mayor are separate and coequal branches of city government, it is arguable that the Council is not obligated to allow the "executive" branch of government to participate in its legislative deliberations. In my relatively brief period of observing the Council for the last eight years or so under the Usovicz and Driscoll administrations, I've noted that the Mayor and department heads are given ample time to clarify issues in front of Council subcommittees, where members can ask questions before matters go before the entire Council for a vote.
William Legault
2:32 pm on Monday, June 4, 2012
You are correct in much that you say here James, however the word "may" in section 19 clearly (IMO) leaves the discretion to the mayor, not the council.
I will add that as I have observed the council and three mayors interact I find it unfortunate that when this issue arises it is almost always due to a failure behind the scenes to settle whatever the difference may be on a particular issue. These differences usually arise more from animosity from one side or another as opposed to legitimate differences of opinion or approach.
Much is arguable James, but when does an argument become a fight?
It is certainly a pleasure to discuss legal opinion with an actual lawyer James. Go easy on me, I'm just a layman.
john
3:47 pm on Monday, June 4, 2012
When the Mayor does speak,she tends to come across as the only person with the right opinion. She talks too long and tries to convince everyone that she has the only real solutions for Salem. She also seems to want to come back over and over again to try to make her point. Give her a couple of minutes,one time ,and move on.
James R. Willis Jr.
4:29 pm on Monday, June 4, 2012
Regardless of how one feels about the style or substance of what Mayor Driscoll says, the Charter or Council rules shouldn't be changed for the benefit or detriment of a specific Mayor.
john
4:41 pm on Monday, June 4, 2012
Maybe they should be changed for the benifit of the city.
William Legault
4:33 pm on Monday, June 4, 2012
Wise words Mr. Willis.
Cheryl Michaels
11:34 am on Tuesday, June 5, 2012
In the interest of understanding all sides of an issue and considering all points of view before making a decision, I am completely baffled as to why the council would ever want to prohibit the Mayor or others from addressing them.