I have grave concerns about giving our ability to determine when and where we can build schools and how to fund them. This is a responsibility charles county loses if it goes to Charter. The state legislature will have to give us permission and send us the funfing. This is from the presentation that Kevin from MACO explained. Now he has never seen a county be denied a request for their school funding but it could happen. I fear that larger counties having more need may be able to defer or delay our building of schools. Then there is Harford county in a lawsuit between the Council and the Executive. When the Exec learned the council was going to over rule his deciding not to build another jail facility the Executive moved the funds so even tho the council over ruled him they have no funds to build with. This is too much power in one persons job description and how do they hold him or her accountable ? More million dollar court cases the tax payers have to pay for and no one will win. Charter appears to be less transparent and less accountable to tax payers.
Charter Notes January 24, 2024
by Jim Crawford
Anticipate opposition/objections and implement appropriate language in the Charter.
Cost/Benefit projection should be clear.
SUMMARY:
(There is a movement in the current State legislature to require the remaining commissioner counties to implement a Charter.) This Board is timely.
"Haven't we outgrown the old Commissioner system?"
Govt. Improvement is needed.
"What will the Charter do for you?"
VISION:
The future Benefits of Charter have to substantially outweigh the current Negatives of Commissioners Code Home Rule.
MISSION:
A Charter, not to make government larger, but to make it Efficient, Accountable, and Responsive to its citizens.
Commissioner vs. Charter comparison. Pros & Cons
Commissioner PROS:
1) Been in place for many years.
2) Small size for potentially quick decisions.
CONS:
1) Only 3 (majority of 5) people have difficulty of efficiently governing large, diverse, growing population.
2) Combined Executive and Legislative authority with no checks and balances.
3) Difficulty for Department heads and employees to know who's boss (which commissioner) to take orders from.
4) Potential for scandal or corruption charges to be ignored.
5) Except for election, no provision for (recall or removal) or accountability for doing a poor job.
6) Influential donors only need access and approval of 3 Commissioners to gain a desired result.
7) Ability to create their own perks.
8) Incumbent Commissioners have significant advantage for extended terms with no limits.
Will Charter (this one) mean better government for Charles County?
The proposed Charter should address the CONS, or problems of the current Code Home Rule Commissioner system.
Charter PROS:
1) Creating efficiency by having an Executive with managerial authority, but oversight by a Council.
2) Separating Executive and Legislative responsibilities with positive checks and balances.
3) Creating a clear chain of command authority for all departments. Addresses problems in Permits, Zoning, and Economic Development.
4) Creating Office of Inspector General to provide a check on scandal, corruption, and waste, fraud, and abuse.
5) Creating provisions for elected officials' accountability.
6) Doubling, from 3 to 6, the number of officials who can exert total control on any given issue, by having a 9 Member Council.
7) Defining salaries and perks for elected officials.
8) Creating term limits to ensure greater opportunities for citizens.
9) A simpler method for citizens to challenge an unpopular issue via referendum.
10) Creating a periodic Charter review Board to propose any changes, for which no provision exists under the Commissioners.
Additional Benefits of a well written Charter could include, among others: a simple rollover procedure for maintaining all current departmental employees; a defined and efficient department of permits; a larger, Non-partisan Council to give citizens more and better local representation for all areas of the County.
CONS: Cost. While the Charter provides only for additional positions with the new Council and Inspector General, some of that cost will be offset by eliminating Commissioners' salaries and perks. Moreover, as the population increases, the cost due to the Charter should only increase the budget by a relatively very minor percentage, and that could be offset by increased revenues (not taxes) or prudent savings in various areas. Any tax increases would be determined by a Council, not just a 3 person Commissioner majority.
CONCLUSION--
Voters need to be concerned or fed up enough by the negative consequences and encouraged enough by the positive benefits in order to make a change.
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Crawford
Charter Board, Alternate Member
I have grave concerns about giving our ability to determine when and where we can build schools and how to fund them. This is a responsibility charles county loses if it goes to Charter. The state legislature will have to give us permission and send us the funfing. This is from the presentation that Kevin from MACO explained. Now he has never seen a county be denied a request for their school funding but it could happen. I fear that larger counties having more need may be able to defer or delay our building of schools. Then there is Harford county in a lawsuit between the Council and the Executive. When the Exec learned the council was going to over rule his deciding not to build another jail facility the Executive moved the funds so even tho the council over ruled him they have no funds to build with. This is too much power in one persons job description and how do they hold him or her accountable ? More million dollar court cases the tax payers have to pay for and no one will win. Charter appears to be less transparent and less accountable to tax payers.
Charter Notes January 24, 2024
by Jim Crawford
Anticipate opposition/objections and implement appropriate language in the Charter.
Cost/Benefit projection should be clear.
SUMMARY:
(There is a movement in the current State legislature to require the remaining commissioner counties to implement a Charter.) This Board is timely.
"Haven't we outgrown the old Commissioner system?"
Govt. Improvement is needed.
"What will the Charter do for you?"
VISION:
The future Benefits of Charter have to substantially outweigh the current Negatives of Commissioners Code Home Rule.
MISSION:
A Charter, not to make government larger, but to make it Efficient, Accountable, and Responsive to its citizens.
Commissioner vs. Charter comparison. Pros & Cons
Commissioner PROS:
1) Been in place for many years.
2) Small size for potentially quick decisions.
CONS:
1) Only 3 (majority of 5) people have difficulty of efficiently governing large, diverse, growing population.
2) Combined Executive and Legislative authority with no checks and balances.
3) Difficulty for Department heads and employees to know who's boss (which commissioner) to take orders from.
4) Potential for scandal or corruption charges to be ignored.
5) Except for election, no provision for (recall or removal) or accountability for doing a poor job.
6) Influential donors only need access and approval of 3 Commissioners to gain a desired result.
7) Ability to create their own perks.
8) Incumbent Commissioners have significant advantage for extended terms with no limits.
Will Charter (this one) mean better government for Charles County?
The proposed Charter should address the CONS, or problems of the current Code Home Rule Commissioner system.
Charter PROS:
1) Creating efficiency by having an Executive with managerial authority, but oversight by a Council.
2) Separating Executive and Legislative responsibilities with positive checks and balances.
3) Creating a clear chain of command authority for all departments. Addresses problems in Permits, Zoning, and Economic Development.
4) Creating Office of Inspector General to provide a check on scandal, corruption, and waste, fraud, and abuse.
5) Creating provisions for elected officials' accountability.
6) Doubling, from 3 to 6, the number of officials who can exert total control on any given issue, by having a 9 Member Council.
7) Defining salaries and perks for elected officials.
8) Creating term limits to ensure greater opportunities for citizens.
9) A simpler method for citizens to challenge an unpopular issue via referendum.
10) Creating a periodic Charter review Board to propose any changes, for which no provision exists under the Commissioners.
Additional Benefits of a well written Charter could include, among others: a simple rollover procedure for maintaining all current departmental employees; a defined and efficient department of permits; a larger, Non-partisan Council to give citizens more and better local representation for all areas of the County.
CONS: Cost. While the Charter provides only for additional positions with the new Council and Inspector General, some of that cost will be offset by eliminating Commissioners' salaries and perks. Moreover, as the population increases, the cost due to the Charter should only increase the budget by a relatively very minor percentage, and that could be offset by increased revenues (not taxes) or prudent savings in various areas. Any tax increases would be determined by a Council, not just a 3 person Commissioner majority.
CONCLUSION--
Voters need to be concerned or fed up enough by the negative consequences and encouraged enough by the positive benefits in order to make a change.
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Crawford
Charter Board, Alternate Member