I attended Bay City’s Jan. 28 city council meeting and I was as stunned by what I saw and heard as well as what I didn’t hear.
I am talking about the City Charter revisions that council is considering for placement on the May 3 municipal election ballot that could impact the council, the city manager, and Bay City’s future.
First, I listened to the city attorney give her presentation on the proposed changes.
She proclaimed passionately about her conversations big and small with council where they discussed all the “struggles” on why the changes are proposed.
I waited to hear from the council members themselves about what those “struggles” were so I could understand the council’s desire to propose such changes.
There were no further explanations!
Absolutely, not a single “struggle” was explained - nor when they were faced with such struggles.
They all sat there and listened to a prepared presentation from the city attorney – why?
Did they know ahead of time what each of the charter provisions was about before she was going to present?
Now, I do not attend every city council meeting or workshop, but I do read about them in the newspaper.
To be sure I didn’t miss anything, I checked every agenda and the meeting minutes for the past year on the city website.
I found that there have been no agenda item or mention of these “struggles” in any open session discussion on the revisions presented or even the subject of the charter in a council regular or workshop meeting.
The closest thing I heard was a general comment made by a councilman asking about complications that arise from having 4 seats - the mayor and three council positions - up for election at one time like they are this year.
Nothing further - no charter agenda item, no discussion, and no workshop discussion.
So, when and how is the public to know a charter review is going on?
How does the public let council know their wishes on what changes they would like to discuss or even consider to be placed on the ballot in the first place?
The city attorney explained it away in her presentation as “by state law” or municipal code as the council is only obligated to place the provisions on the ballot, and do their due diligence required by law.
She added, “Who better to decide on these changes than the council” and “Who better to understand the council’s ‘struggles?’”
She also pointed out that the last election removed the requirement for council to appoint a Charter Review Commission.
Why have they not discussed any of the charter changes in an open session or even a workshop before the attorney spends city dollars drawing up the proposed changes?
According to the city attorney’s presentation, council members are the only ones knowledgeable or qualified to consider what needs to be changed in the charter.
I guess, the voters should be thankful that, by law, we can vote on the changes.
Somehow it feels more like they are forcing residents to the polls to be heard - council might have gained some insight from the public on whether they even needed to change some of the provisions.
After all, the attorney man hours, council, charter commissions’ suggestions and data from 2018, and most importantly a voter-approved charter was not enough to keep voters from being forced to consider a change in the City Manager’s residency requirement and a shift in oversight power from council to city manager.
I cannot believe that in all of those countless hours, the public and council got it wrong when they proposed the provisions for the 2019 election.
As it is, we still have the same city attorney from that 2019 charter election.
All I’m asking is why did the council not even place a charter review on a council meeting agenda, who is driving the Charter revisions train, and why and who is benefiting from some of the current propositions.
