.. ,) ,
Pa 6
MICInGAN CITIZEN DETROIT EDITION OCTOBER 31, 1
o TB
LLOT
L
ITY CHARTER REVISIO
3 b Ilot. The ball
pre rued to the vot r as follow :
H LL THEREB
P OPO AL" "
GE ER L REVI 10 OF TH CHARTER OF THE
ITY OF DETROIT?
YES 0
city ch rter? The chan r i the city' con titution, it' most b ic I w. The Michigan
n tituti n and the Home Rule itie Act provide that the citizen of a city can exerci local
self-g vernrnent by framing. d pting. and amending a home rule charter.
Th h rter e tabli h th form g vemrnent. it office ,how those officers are lected,
th ir term . and the dutie and powe f the officers. It pre ribe procedure to be followed in
peratin th government of the city and e tabli he afeguard which protect the citizen
again t mi use of municip I authority.
hange in the city charter can be a cornpli hed by mglei ue charter amendmen pi ed
n the ballot by eith r a two third vote of th nine-member council, or attainin pproximately
2 • ignature: or. by a gen ral charter revi ion pproved by the voters.
What i charter revi ion? The ch rter revi ion que tion provide the community an opportu
nity to determi how well the form and tructure of the city e tabli hed by the charter meet th
ne ds of the citizen today and for the future. A charter revi ion commis ion can recommend
for con ideration by the voters a revi ed charter that it believe would m e government more
effective and re pon ive to changing community need .
harter HI tory Detroit' fir t three charters were written by the tate legi lature. in
cordance with th law of the time. The Michigan con titution of 1908 authorized home rule,
and the Hom Rule Citie Act(P.A. 279 of 1909 a amended)e tabli he theproce for electing
a charter commi ion to write a charter. It Ii t what th charter can and cannot include, and
dictate how the charter i put on the ballot for vote to adopt or reject. Even though the charter
h to tay within the provi ion of the tate con titution and tate law ,th power to develop,
adopt. revise, or amend the city charter i broad and important.
In 191 .the citizen of Detroit adopted home rule charter that instituted Jhe trong mayor
council form of government, reduced the ize of the council from 42 to nine, and changed the
m nner of electing council rnem from election from wards on a panisan i to election at
large on nonpani an ba i . That charter , rved Detroit' con titution for S6 years, during
which time it wa amended over 200 time . By the late 1960' ,there w concern that the 1918
ch rrer w hampering (he dmini tration of urban renewal. ial program ,affirmative action,
and other progr ms. A charter tudy committee ppointed in 1968 by Mayor C van ugh
recommended that th city ch rter be completely rewritten, not to change the fonn of
overnment, but rather to elimin te many of the legal re traints in the old document.
Detroit voters approved calling a charter commi ion in Au u t 1970 and elected a charter
comrnis ion in November of that year. At the November 1972 election, the proposed new
charter w narrow Iy defeat d. but two parate proposal ubmitted to the voters were decided!
67,percent wanted to retain t-Iarge election rather th n return to a ward y tern, and 63 percent
oppo d chan ing from nonpani election. In November 1973, voter pprovcd a revised
pr po. d charter th t retained th trong mayor-council form which clearly define !he powers
of the exe utive and legi lative branche and incorpor ed the two proposal and other
modific ti n . That charter al provided th t in 1993 and every 16 years hereafter, voters
hould decid wh th r to undertake a general revi i n of the charter.
T.M urrent harter There have been 17 proposed amendmenu to the 1974 charter; 13 of
tho h ve p d. Arnendmen m y alter or improve within the line of the original charter,
but a change that di rupts, cancel ,or m e inoperable the origin I charter i a revi ion. For
ex mple, doption of ward el tion of coun i I member could be compli hed by amendment,
buuch ngefT mthe trongmayor-councilfomitothewe m yor-councilorcouncil-mana er
form of city governm nt would require a revi ion. '
r different depanrnen : require City
Ii h
QU
10
A H
TH
H
00
+Tbe Detroit City Charter e tabli he t legi I tive branch, headed by the City
Council. which determint' the policie of th city overnment. The Council
ordinance • which are municipal re ul tion. d re elution which are formal expre -
ion of will, opinion, or intent, in cordance with charter provi ion. While City
Council i re pon ible for determining policy. it mu t rely on the M yor to implement
th policie . The M yor i empowered to veto t of the City Council: Council may
override m yoral vetoe .
The City Council i also re pon ible for oversight of the executive branch, and i
given inve tigative powers in the depanrn nt of Audit r General and Ombud man to
i t in thi important ignrnent. The �haner pecifically re train council from
direct involvement in executive branch oper tion by prohibiting Council from givin
orde to executive branch employee. The re pon ibility . for oversight and the
prohibition from interfering in executive branch operation have also provided the i
for conflict between tlle two branche of city government.
A new charter commi ion might <Jeal with some of the arne i ue th t the 1970-
73 charter commi ion addre . Should the trong mayor-council form by retained?
How many Council membe houJd be elected? Should Council members be elected
at large or by ward, or some combination of the two? Should the City Clerk be elected
or ppointed? What powers hould be �lIoc ted to the Mayor, and w powers hould
be igned to the Council? To what extent hould the executive branch organization
be dictated by the charter? How can the Police Department be m accountable to the
citizen?' •
The current charter doe not impose term-limi on the Mayor, City Clerk, or City
council members, but term limit could be included through amendment or revi ion of
the charter. A revised or amended charter could e tabli h decentralized community
government or make regional pproache e ier to implement. It could trengthen the
City Council at the expen e of the Mayor. It could tren then or boli h the
. Ombudsman, limit the tax rate to le than the 20 mill maximum allowed by , tate law,
or make any number of other change within the limi of tate law.
Although the city charter determine the form, tructure, and me procedure of city
government. there are many thing that the city charter cannot do. It cannot guarantee
efficient and effective government. It cannot in ure fiscal re pon ibility or revitalize the
economy of the city. It cannot provide leade hip or direction. The citizen of the city
are ultimately'"re pon ible for determinin the form of city government and for electing
the leade hip th t will u that and other in trumen to serve the re ident.
Principal Ar men In Favor of Ge I Rev
-The charter revi ion proce i an exerei in local If-government and e h
eneration of citizen hould h ve the opponunity to draft i own charter.
-Detroit h changed in the past 20 years and the overnmental needs of i
citize hould be re-examined.
-�troit city gove�nt h f ced gridlock over the past 20 years with frequent
di pute and lawsuits between the m yor and council.
- A comprehen ive review of the tructure of city government i needed to
determine i effectiveoe f r meeting the city' future need .
-There a ufficient number of proposed charter revi ion areas to warrant an
overall �hanet revi ion pproach rather than ingle amendmen which are an
aI�m live pproach to � charter revi ion proce . It is difficult to get a two
thirds v of the council or 28,000 ignature for charter amendment· and
piecemeal amendments create problem . ' ,
Pri lpal Ar
-The pre nt city charter h served the city �ell and ctulner revi ion open up
the door to uncontempl ted change in the charter th t might not be de irable.
I
-The c t of ere ting a charter commi ion could well exceed $1 million.
-There doe not ppear to be a ground II of public ntiment for a enerai
revi ion of the city charter.
-There h v� been onl y one mayor and 17 city council rnembe to function under
the present charter- newadmini tration will take over the city government next
year and hould be given the opportunity to rve under the pre nt charter.
-The I t chaner revi ion occU1'Ted largely beea of the "Cavanau h Charter
Study" which recommended revi ion and provided two important elemen : )
It identified pecific charter weakne se in a SO-year old chaner that had been
amended over 200 time ; B) It focused public' aention on the i \.Ie of charter
revi ion well in adv e of electing charter commi ionen and volin on the
I t que tion.
t $75 per meetina
for adoption or
OVID D Y TH cmz
H 0
ILO MI HIGA