Trending
To the editor:
After reading The Breeze article on the new Charter Review Commission, I think they are have a good point: A lot needs to be done.
Do we need a Charter Review Commission when the mayor and city attorney seemingly can change the charter at will?
Case in point: The mayor, city attorney and council did away with #8 on its Council procedures, Petitions to Council, by "discovering a conflict" with the Charter. The City Attorney made the call acting as a Supreme Court justice. Could we not wait until the Charter Review Commission meets and reviews this and all other gray areas of the charter? It, #8 on the council agenda, wasn't needed, was their word. The mayor has denied petitions to council of over the last four years, including mine. There were only a few petitions to council to begin with. This provision of the agenda was not abused nor was it historically tied to the Charter: Council said that. Should not the new Charter Review Commission be looking into this change? What was the rush?
Case in point: The Charter Commission needs to clear up the gray area of who is term limited out. One currently sitting member on council was termed out by serving two consecutive terms 12 years ago. Yet the Charter is vague. Should this not be a case for the new Charter Review Commission to review?
The council and mayor liberally interpret the Charter to their best interests because they do not study the Charter. Hopefully some good will come from this new committee to end council's, "Well, this what it means."
Lou Navarra
Cape Coral