Home › Opinion & Editorial › Columnists
Brent Batten: Charter change shouldn’t be absent
More Columnists 
Share and Enjoy 
There’s talk among Naples City Council members that the city charter ought to be changed.
They’re onto something. But it’s the wrong something.
Councilman Bill Willkomm is calling for discussion of a charter amendment to better define the word “absent” as it pertains to the mayor and the execution of his duties.
In this age of cell phones and Internet connections, absent is as difficult to pin down as a feral cat.
But there is language in the city charter, language little noticed prior to the current flap, that ought to be exorcised from the document.
Section 2.4 of the charter, the portion delineating the duties of the mayor, states, “(The mayor’s) instructions to the city manager and city attorney shall have the effect of a council decision except where disapproved by the City Council in regular or special session.”
So the mayor can basically go around telling the city manager what to do until council tells him otherwise.
That goes against the council-manager form of government Naples supposedly embraces. The theory is City Council, led by the mayor, lays out policy in public meetings and a hired professional manager carries them out.
How did language giving the mayor latitude to act as a tyrant get into the charter in the first place?
Clerk Tara Norman says the language was inserted in 1961 by a special act of the Florida Legislature. The reason isn’t clear from the records Norman’s reviewed.
In 1969 a charter revision commission considered taking the language out. Then City Clerk Elsie Lehman succinctly summarized why: “It is inappropriate for the mayor ... to be considered the executive or administrative head of the city. The City Council collectively is responsible for the city’s programs and for supervising the operations assigned to the manager.”
But for whatever reason, the charter commission left the language in.
Mayor Bill Barnett, asked if he had ever given the city manager marching orders other than those voted on by council, answered, “Never.” For good measure he added, “Never.” And, in case he hadn’t made himself clear, “Never.”
“I would hope I would never want to,” Barnett said.
Tom Trettis, a former Naples city attorney and county judge, believes Barnett does use the provision to give direction to the city manager. He’s been lobbying council members for a change.
“We don’t need a $300,000 city manager. Bill Barnett is running the city. He has a high school education. He doesn’t have the ability to run this city. He’s down there eight to 10 hours a day. I think decisions are being made (by Barnett) that a well-qualified city manager should make.”
Whether you accept Barnett’s version of reality, or Trettis’ you have to wonder why the provision has to be in the charter to begin with.
Other than in emergencies, which city law addresses elsewhere, Section 2.4 seems an open invitation for Barnett or some future mayor to meddle with city operations outside the consensus of a council majority and the scrutiny of public meetings.
Instead of spinning its wheels trying to define “absent,’’ if the council is intent on changing the charter, it ought to look at the words that elevate the position of mayor to potential dictator.
E-mail Brent Batten at bebatten@naplesnews.com
Tired of being stuck behind that cement mixer? Wondering if you need to buy stock in Bob's Barricades? 
Comments
This site does not necessarily agree with comments posted below. Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. Break our rules, and we will ban you. No exceptions, no second chances. Read our privacy policy & user agreement.
Post your comment
(Requires free registration.)