So the Charter

This might be the toughest vote on the ballot.

As you may recall, I was an early proponent of the campaign to review the charter. I collected signatures on the petitions necessary to get the process started. I campaigned - albeit weakly - for the responsibility to serve on the Charter Review Commission. I didn't win.

And I stepped back, way back.

The review of the charter - the document that serves as a blueprint for the city government - underwent its first rigorous review in 90 years, and it was done in obscurity. I never attended a meeting or even a public hearing. I had diapers to change.

The process looked painful from afar and a few of the elected board members disappointed, but they were replaced with people who didn't. I congratulate and thank all who took part in this grueling effort.

So here we are, staring at the change we all knew was coming - the four-year mayor.

Oh sure, some people went into this process with the hopes of installing a city manager, but that was never going to happen. It was always going to be a four-year mayoral term.

So here we are.

But there's a problem - the lack of a device within the charter to turn that four-year term into a three-year term, two-year term or whatever abbreviation is necessary to remove an unworthy mayor from office, we're talking about the lack of a recall.

Supporters of the revised charter will point out the current charter doesn't include a recall provision either, but the two-year mayor term we currently employ serves as a built in recall. If someone's doing crap job after one term, they can be - and usually are - ousted.

Meanwhile, if a mayor is doing a good job they're likely to face any significant opposition - or any opponent at all as we're seeing in the current election.

But tacking on two additional years to the mayor's term eliminates that option.

In exchange, the additional two years delivers some stability and certainty to the mayor's position. This longer term, the supporters argue, gives the mayor the ability to execute on long-term projects and could possibly entice more people to run for the office.

Four years at a decent salary - the new charter calls for $98,000 - could attract people with legitimate management experience, municipal or otherwise, the supporters say.

In making that point, I'd say the supporters are probably right. A longer term and higher salary could deliver stability to the corner office which could be filled by someone with legitimate management experience. I'd vote yes next Tuesday if the issue were as simple as that.

But the lack of a recall does bother me.

Supporters of the changes (incidentally three of the nine charter commission members voted against the final package for various reasons)  will point out that the majority of people who filled out surveys said they favored a four-year term, and no one mentioned the need for a recall. That's probably true, but it's a specious argument.  I, for one, didn't think the insertion of a recall provision would be necessary to stage a recall. I'd just assumed it was a standard safeguard in municipal governments. I was ignorant.

So I'm a bit undecided. I expected to come out in favor of the charter revision, but the more I write the more questions I have.

I do think the proposed Charter changes do a great job in cleaning up the codification of our city government, and I'd be behind them 100% if the recall provision had been included. My favorite change to the charter is a requirement that the charter be revisited in 10 years to keep the document alive and vital.

There's a great deal of good to support. The question is do I reject the all the changes out of the fear that someday a complete incompetent will remain in the office one or two years too long because we didn't have a recall?

Or do I vote out hope, knowing I'm giving the next Mayor (the provision won't take place until 2014) the tools necessary to better manage the city.

I'm leaning heavily toward hope.