Charter must be changed by people

"The charter so ratified may be amended by amendments proposed and submitted by the legislative authority of the city to the qualified electors thereof (or by petition as hereinafter provided), at a general or special election, and ratified by a majority of the qualified electors voting thereon and approved by the Governor as herein provided for the approval of the charter."

So reads the Constitution of the state of Arizona relative to cities changing or amending their respective charters. Simple and straight forward; if you wish to change or amend the city charter (as in the recent hospitality tax election), you put it before the people and let them vote it up or down.

Now come the mayor and council of the city of Yuma with their version of charter amendments. Resolution No. R2009-36 approved by the council Wednesday regarding the the city budget reads in part:

"WHEREAS, the Yuma City Charter states that the City Council shall (emphasis added) have control of all (emphasis added) litigation of the city, and may employ other attorneys to take charge of any litigation or to assist the City Attorney therein. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Yuma as follows: That the City Attorney is authorized to employ outside legal counsel (emphasis added) to take charge of any litigation or to assist the City Attorney."

Clearly, the council has attempted to amend the city charter by the passage of a simple resolution and to abdicate to the city attorney the authority vested in them by the good folks of Yuma.

The lawful course would be to place the question before the voters (as per the state Constitution) at the next general election. However, the powers that be seem to believe that their good intentions are sufficient to justify their illicit actions.

Mayor Larry Nelson (who is running for re-election) said that he was comfortable with their position because the city staff kept the council fully informed on all litigation issues. Council Paul Johnson (who is running for re-election) said that he believed it was an appropriate action because the council wasn’t qualified to know the best firm to engage for a particular issue.

All other members present voted to approve the (state) unconstitutional resolution, including Councilwoman Ema Lea Shoop (who is running for re-election). Well, grand, if that is what they believe then follow the law – as they expect of us – and amend the charter in the proper fashion.

The unfortunate reality is that while the veracity-challenged powers that-be down at One City Plaza continue to hammer its’ citizens by demanding the dotting of every "I" and the crossing of every "T," for themselves the harsh enforcers allow a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.

PHIL CLARK

Yuma