Three years ago, we finally accepted the fact that the general manager was the only one who saw the employees on a daily basis. The general manager was the only one who could determine the skills required for each position. 

     We changed.

     Now the employees are hired by, report to and are evaluated by the general manager. 

     It works.

     Culver City needs to take the same step forward.

 

     The new Charter requires the City Council to set policies and adopt budgets.  They will act like a board of trustees of a major corporation, which is exactly what Culver City is. The City Council would still hire the police and fire chiefs and the city attorney as well as the city manager. 

 

      A city manager will be hired to manage the day-to-day operations of the city.  The city manager will appoint the city treasurer to handle the city’s funds.  He/she will appoint a city clerk who will serve as the city’s election official as well as other tasks established by ordinance.

     There will be job requirements for those positions just as there are for all other department heads. 

All department heads would have the same benefits and status in the new structure — a good thing.  Contracts would be negotiated with new employees and the Council, as the controlling body over the budget, would act as insurance that the best interests of the city are guaranteed.

 

     City department heads would work with the city manager as a team. The chain of command would be clear. Problems could be addressed more quickly and efficiently with trained professionals making those day-to-day decisions. 

 

     Ethics and conflicts of interest are addressed in the new Charter. 

     Isn’t it about time we expected our city officials to act in an ethical manner?  There are ordinances that are in effect, but shouldn’t the city’s governing document (Constitution) demand ethical conduct?

 

     Speaking of constitutions, opponents of Measure V state that we don’t need a new charter because the United States has the same constitution that was drafted some two hundred years ago. 

     Are they not aware that the Constitution of the United States is not the same document today? Remember the Bill of Rights?  Before the ink had dried, ten amendments were added. Since then, there have been dozens more.  

     Many of us would not be able to vote today had the document remained static.

     Parts of the new Charter were taken directly from the old — duties of the city attorney, the budget process, term limits. 

     Some changes were made to allow the Council to conduct the city’s business more efficiently:

     Requiring a majority (rather than a four-out-of-five) vote to adjourn a meeting to another place and time;

     To remove a city manager, fire chief, police chief or city attorney;

     And to appoint someone to fill a vacant seat on the City Council.

 

     We are told, "If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it."  The typewriter still works, and it is possible to purchase white-out. But would you go back to that way of preparing documents?  No.

     Would you give up your Xerox and go back to ditto and mimeos? No.

     It is inefficient and too costly.  Trains work.  But most of us jump on a plane to get to New York. Few of us have the time and funds to take a luxury liner to London. 

 

     The New Charter is supported by former members of City Council and former department heads as well as the current Treasurer because they know we need our charter to reflect the needs of today and tp be flexible enough to meet the demands of tomorrow.

 

Stephen Schwartz, Past President, Raintree Townhouse Assn.,Culver City