Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
Besides selecting five municipal officers next Tuesday, voters in in two west Pasco cities will be asked to consider referendums, two of which deal with local public safety services.
In Port Richey, the ballot question reads, "Should ordinance number 03-522 pertaining to contracting the city of Port Richey's police-fire dispatch and communications services with the city of New Port Richey be repealed?"
Even candidates on the ballot acknowledge the wording may be confusing. Voting "yes" means voiding the local measure adopted as part of last year's budget deliberations to contract with the city of New Port Richey. Voting "no" affirms the council's 3-2 vote.
Nobody has offered substantive data on why the ordinance should be repealed. Most cite a suspicion that it is a preliminary move to disband the police department eventually. Such a maneuver, however, also requires a referendum. Others suggest the contract will be more costly than predicted because of incompatibility with New Port Richey's reporting and computer systems.
The current ballot question also can be construed as a referendum on the current council majority of Dale Massad, Phyllis Grae and Pat Guttman, who approved the contracting measure. Guttman is retiring and Grae is in the middle of her term. Massad, however, faces re-election. His name is listed among six candidates for three council seats on the ballot directly above the referendum question. Expressing displeasure with his performance in office is more appropriate at the candidate level.
The idea of eliminating dispatch service and contracting with New Port Richey did not emerge out of thin air. (Unlike the earlier unsuccessful attempt to get rid of the police department.) Contracting with another agency was one of the recommendations from a consultant hired by the city to study its police efficiency. Expected savings are listed at more than $90,000 annually.
Shared services is a notion Port Richey should embrace. But this debate is political, not practical. There is such a genuine mistrust of the council majority's motivations that a citizens' group successfully petitioned for the referendum, then went to court and defended their right to do so. Their intentions, at least, are honorable.
They correctly wonder why other recommendations from the consultant have not been adopted and why other departments have not undergone the same efficiency studies as advocated previously by Grae. The council should give them an answer.
In the meantime, the ordinance should not be repealed. Municipalities are facing difficult budget decisions for a number of reasons, including spending restrictions tied to redevelopment programs and a reluctance to raise property tax rates. Shared services are a logical alternative.
We recommend Port Richey voters say "No" to its April 13 ballot question.
In New Port Richey, voters face two ballot questions. The first states:
"Shall the city charter be amended to provide three-year terms of office for mayor and council members, changing eligibility for holding elected office, changing contract term for city auditors, providing for electronic publication of ordinances, providing for appointment of an assistant city manager, providing for preparation of an organization chart, changing the annual budget message, changing the capital budget adoption procedures, changing the number of signatures for initiative petitions and making non-substantive wording changes?"
The alterations are numerous and would have been handled better in multiple ballot questions. Changing the terms in office to three years, instead of two, is reason enough to disapprove this. Though term limits remain unchanged, voters shouldn't be deprived of the opportunity to judge their incumbents every other year.
The Times recommends voting "No" against the new city charter.
The second questions states: "Shall Section 2.12 (1) of the city charter be amended to delete language requiring voter approval at referendum for any ordinance that proposed to abolish or transfer either the police department or the fire department to any city, county or state agency?"
In other words, if future city councils believe it is prudent public policy to contract public safety services, should voters continue to be allowed an automatic say-so?
The language should be deleted. Though we have advocated voter participation elsewhere on public safety issues, it should not be so automatic as to prohibit City Council members from doing their job. Imagine if Dade City had to meet an automatic referendum requirement to contract with Pasco County for fire protection. The question would not have gone to the electorate until six months into the budget year or until after the financially strapped city had paid for a special election. Neither makes good budgeting sense.
New Port Richey voters have the opportunity to petition their City Council for a referendum, as was done a few years ago on the question of outdoor alcohol sales on city property. If the process already exists, mandating the requirement for public safety issues is redundant.
Voters should vote "Yes" for the amendment.