Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

2 worthy changes in Brooksville charter

By Times editorial
Published November 1, 2006

Registered voters who live in Brooksville can vote Tuesday on three proposed changes to the city charter, the document that governs the city much the same way Florida is governed by its state Constitution. As such, amendments to Brooksville's charter must be approved by voters.

The changes are proposed every six years by a committee of volunteers who are appointed by City Council members to review the charter. This year, one of the proposed amendments is little more than a housekeeping item, but the other two are more substantial and voters should not overlook their impact.

In the order they will appear on the ballot, here are the proposed amendments and our recommendations to city voters:

Charter Amendment 1: "Adds a prohibition against the city entering into contracts in which the city agrees to indemnify any other party for its own negligence or agrees to obtain insurance for the benefit of any other party."

Nothing controversial here. This proposal protects the city by eliminating the likelihood that it could be sued by groups that might use city facilities or resources. It requires those groups to obtain their own insurance and prohibits the City Council from making any exceptions. The Times recommends a "Yes" vote.

Charter Amendment 2: "Allows a former elected official of the city to hold a city office or employment within one year after leaving the elected office, but only if appointed by the city manager, with the approval of the City Council, to a budgeted non-supervisory position."

This has not been an issue, so it is a curious coincidence that this proposed amendment has emerged during a year when three council members are leaving office because of term limits.

We support the existing provision, which requires council members to put some time between their tenure of making policy and then carrying out those policies.

The Times recommends a "No" vote on Amendment 2.

Charter Amendment 3: "Requires all members of charter review committees to be city residents."

The Charter Review Committee has 13 members; five of them do not live in the city. We believe they all should.

We recognize the argument by proponents of this measure, who maintain that people who live outside the city but have business or other interests there should have a voice in their government. Indeed, nonresidents should be encouraged to express their opinions and defend their interests, and those views should be welcomed by city officials.

However, that can be accomplished without giving nonresidents the potential of creating a voting bloc to change the city's guiding document.

The Times recommends a "Yes" vote on Amendment 3.

[Last modified November 1, 2006, 14:27:56]