Let's Not Tinker With the City of Fresno Charter

In the mid-1990's, visionary Fresno leaders, primarily from the private sector, established a citizen commission to consider changes to the City of Fresno charter that sets forth the structure and procedure of city governance. Their outstanding work led to City of Fresno voters overwhelmingly approving what has come to be called the "strong mayor" form of government. This significant change separated the mayor from the council and created a different set of responsibilities for each. The mayor was given increased responsibilities as the "chief executive" for the city, and the council gained two additional seats to make a council of seven members.

The charter change was an excellent one. Fresno leapfrogged most other municipalities in the country in implementing a governance system that has served it well for the past 20 years. Now a slight majority of council members proposes to change an important aspect of the charter by not implementing the provision for adding two additional council seats when the city population exceeds a half million. While not turning back the clock to the discredited "weak mayor" form of governance that existed prior to the mid-1990's, the proposal lacks merit and should not be approved either by the council in its second reading or by the voters since an affirmative council vote requires voter approval by City of Fresno citizens.

The position taken by council proponents for not adding the additional council member seats is that it is too expensive. This is simply not true. Each council member is paid $60,000 a year with the additional cost of two council assistants. Routine office expenses are on top of personnel costs. The expense associated with adding the two positions is less than one half of one percent of the city budget.

Cost (while small) should not be the overriding criteria in determining whether the council should be limited to the current seven members or expanded to the charter-mandated nine in the near future. Of far more importance is the work that the council does now and will be expected to do as the city population increases. Addressing the day-to-day needs of almost 80,000 constituents per council member, along with the policy decisions that must be addressed every week in public council meetings, is arduous and time-consuming. The responsibility should be spread over an additional two council members as the city population continues to increase well into the 21st century.

The charter provision for expanding the council upon the city reaching a population milestone was carefully considered and overwhelmingly approved by city voters in the mid-1990's. It was revisited again in 2006 when I was on the council. A slight majority of the council at that time voted to change the charter by placing the same prohibition against adding two additional council members when the population reached a certain point. Since it was a charter amendment and required voter approval, it went before the voters in the general election where it was voted down.

While I have always supported the strong mayor form of government, I am also having a difficult time trying to understand why some council members want to shoot themselves in the foot by restricting its number (and influence) in the democratic checks and balances process that takes place between itself and the mayor. Do they really want to have a strong, strong mayor form of government? And do they want to tell their constituents that the every-increasing size of the district means that they will have difficulty meeting their needs? Or is there the unstated motive of some council members that adding two more members might lessen their time in the spotlight?

I have always marveled at the extraordinary work of those citizens 20 years ago that held all those public meetings leading to a popular vote for significant improvements to the City of Fresno Charter under which the city operates today. And to drive home the value of those changes, the citizens just four years ago AGAIN reaffirmed the value of the charter.

Should the council approve the proposal in the second reading, the mayor would be wise to veto it, thereby requiring a super-majority to approve it. Something as important as a charter amendment should require a super-majority anyway.

There's a well-used phrase that applies to this current attempt at tinkering with the charter: "If it ain't broke, don't mess with it."

Coming Soon...

1. The Fresno Philharmonic: We should be so fortunate.
2. College students, program reviews and jobs.
3. "Choice" for parents and students in our local schools.

Comments are welcome. Click on "Comments" below or e-mail abriancalhoun@gmail.com