Ignorance Under the Law

Confession time. When I moved to this city I never took the time to sit down and actually read the city charter. In fact, I never read the charter of Salt Lake City when I lived there, nor of any other place I've ever lived. Every incorporated municipality has one, right?

Has anyone read their city's charter or incorporating documents?

Ever?

And I don't count lawyers hired by or contracted to a city who must read it as part of their jobs, nor lawyers for people who might want legal recourse against a municipality. I'm referring to real people.

And yet, this fall, we, the voters who have never read our charter, are being asked to amend it in seven different places. Because we're the ones in charge, after all.

Most of the amendments seem sensible enough:

• Change the amount of severance pay due to city officers when they get fired from four months to four months or whatever is required by state law, whichever is less. (Yes, let's follow state law, please.)
• Change the mayor's and city council's salaries to a fixed amount instead of one based on the number of registered voters. (Who came up with that weird formula in the first place? And the mayor's salary will be only $36,600 a year? Council members, $32,600. For a city with a population just shy of 155,000 people? Really?)
• Change the charter to specify that emergency regulations must be enacted in accordance with state law. (There's the second reference to behaving according to state law. How were we doing it before?)
• Bring our anti-discrimination ordinances up to par by including color, religion sexual orientation, national origin, age, handicap, marital status and/or any class protected by state or federal law. (Yay! I don't have any idea how many of those were not covered before and I wish it were possible to just say "Don't discriminate," but since people in power apparently need to be told in detail this will do nicely for now. And again with the obeying state law thing.)

Two proposed amendments, I don't know what their effect will be or what the intent really is:

• Reduce the number of signatures needed to force a referendum from 15% to 10%. (There's a fine line between allowing citizens to bypass a recalcitrant council and encouraging cranks to petition for their every little hobby horse. If we cross that line it could be nigh impossible to claw back to it. Technically, each of these amendments constitutes its own referendum, already. Just based on the published letters to the editor, I'm inclined to believe we have enough Tea Partiers in town to really gum up the works if given the chance. I'm leaning towards, "No.")
• Reduce the number of members on future Charter Review Commissions (O.K., I guess these folks have read the charter. Don't know how many are lawyers, though.) from nine to seven with two alternates. (Seems like a housekeeping kind of thing. Perhaps they didn't all get along this time. I'll likely go for it.)

And one proposal is a no go from the start:

• Reduce the number of votes needed to override the mayor's line-item veto from two-thirds to a simply majority (but not less than four). (Sorry, no. This is a power grab by the council that will enable them to get their pet projects approved at the expense of the entire city using the good-ol'-boy, buddy-buddy, "I'll override yours if you override mine," system. Our council has too many goofballs (and developers/politicians in developers' pockets) on it to trust them. Perhaps we could get more competent people if we paid them more?)

So there we are. We are charged with changing the rules by which we govern ourselves. It's kind of inspiring although it does make me wonder what else we're still doing that isn't "in accordance with state law."

Not enough to go read the damned charter, though.