City Charter:

Yes, and let’s move on

Two years ago, we opposed a ballot proposal calling for a wholesale review of the Lansing City Charter because we saw no reason to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to improve a document in no major need of repair. Hundreds of thousands of dollars later, we stand by our opinion — while supporting the proposed new charter’s passage on Nov. 4.

We have little argument with the changes (as outlined on Page 5 in this week’s issue) recommended by the elected body that spent over a year pouring over the 47-year-old charter. Commendably, they listened to citizens, accepted some suggestions, rejected others, and acted efficiently and with restraint. Our only quibble is eliminating the three non-Lansing (and nonvoting) board members that voters added just 11 years ago to the Lansing Board of Water & Light, which seems the very antithesis of regional cooperation. We see no harm in other changes, and steps forward in a few. Among them is giving the City Council authority equal to the mayor’s in firing the city attorney, correcting a balance-of-power issue. Another is requiring the mayor to deliver a strategic plan quadrennially. Still another is removing the odious ban on citizens with felony convictions from running for office. Let voters decide who represents us. We could go on.

We also like what it did not propose, chief among them abandoning the strong mayor system for a city manager. It also showed restraint in the face of calls for eliminating all at-large Council seats, which would have made the body even more parochial. Instead, it added a ninth ward, perhaps a sop, but it does eliminate tie votes.

Voters will not see any of these changes on the ballot. They will simply be asked to vote up or down. We encourage you to study the changes elsewhere (such as lansingvotes.gov/yourcharter) and decide if you think the commission should try again, which under state law it can do twice more.

But consider this: For 47 years, we have gotten along fine making one change at a time seven times — in our opinion, better than fine, because then the ballot actually spelled out those seven proposed changes, which voters approved.

The  alternative: Vote down the charter proposal and risk wasting hundreds of thousands more taxpayer dollars should the commission decide to resume its work.

Finally, one change on the ballot Nov. 4 would extend to 16 years, from 12, the frequency with which the charter could be amended through the review process. If nothing else, approve the new charter so we put off by four extra years the risk of going through this folly again.