Click here to subscribe today or Login.
Monday, November 06, 1995 Page: 8A
Kingston amendments, not really deja vu all over again, need your vote
Kingston voters will have the opportunity on election day to vote on three
amendments to the municipality’s Home Rule CharterQuestion 1 is new. Questions
2 and 3 were passed overwhelmingly in 1994, but because of technical
difficulties are being put before the voters again. All three amendments will
increase checks and balances in Kingston’s government.
Question 1 concerns a very familiar organizational and governmental way of
increasing fiscal responsibility. If approved, this amendment will require two
signatures on all municipal checks. The four designated signers, two of whom
must sign each check, are the mayor (now the sole signatory), the municipal
administrator, the financial secretary, and the municipal secretary.
Question 2 addresses the mayor’s duty to report to and inform council and
the public on the work being done, conditions, and needs of the municipality.
This wording is aimed at eliminating any ambiguity in the Home Rule Charter
concerning the duty of the mayor to report to council and the public.
In an effort to clarify it even further, the wording is slightly improved
from that proposed last year. The purpose of this amendment is to provide full
and open communication among the mayor and council and the public. The goal is
an open and accountable administration.
Question 3 includes Kingston’s council in the process of firing — as well
as hiring — the municipal administrator, the finance secretary, and the legal
advisor. Despite passage last year of this same amendment, the municipality
could find itself in the midst of a long and complicated court case should the
mayor fire one of these officials without the consent of council.
Questions 2 and 3 are already familiar to Kingston’s voters from the
November 1994 ballot, when they were approved by an overwhelming majority. Why
are they on the ballot again?
In January 1995, when Atty. Michael Kostelansky became Kingston’s legal
advisor, he researched the issues that had been raised following these
amendments’ passage last year. One issue concerned the date these amendments
would go into effect. The second issue concerned their origin in the form of
council resolutions rather than council ordinances. Therefore, the best and
simplest way for the municipality to avoid costly future litigation would be
to put these amendments on the ballot again.
Following this prudent advice, council has included in all of the above
amendments the date they will go into effect. The council action originating
all these amendments has been by ordinance rather than by resolution. Voters
will recall that the original conflict arose over Mayor Gary Reese’s firing
municipal administrator Jim Phillips. Mr. Phillips has since gone on to work
for another municipality, and his successor, municipal administrator James
Keiper, has worked well with both the mayor and council. However, because of
the technical issues raised following the 1994 election, the most economical
course for Kingston voters is to pass these amendments again in this 1995
election.
I am urging Kingston’s voters to take this opportunity to strengthen the
checks and balances in the Home Rule Charter.
Charles L. Cooper, Jr.
Kingston