That being said maybe we need to make some changes in the charter that will help the city as it grows. we are the 5th largest city in the state and the 9th fastest growing in the country.

Some idea’s

First: in 2010 a federal census will be done.let us use that to realign the city wards, and add more I do not know how long we have had 12, I know at one time some were at lage and this was changed by a city wide vote and that was a good move. The city has grown and the council should grow to the wards would be smaller and give a better representation of the people.

Second: Remove the Mayor from the council. Nomater the size of the body the members of the council should Elect a vice Mayor as they do now and that council person should be the head of the council

If you look at most major city goverments this is how they are set up. The four biggest cities in are own state have this set up it wors for them it will work for us.

Article I § 1. Powers of people

That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; for the advancement of those ends they have at all times, an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.

Article I § 2. Doctrine of non-resistance

That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

While the state has not established a process to exercise that right it is still a constitutional right and on request the system is required to allow the citizens to exercise it.

If not then Americans know how to deal with monarchies…

I have had numerous discussions about the subject and have been disheartened to discover that many do not understand this fundamental concept, this “separations of powers” and “checks and balances”, that helped lay the foundation our National and State Constitutions. Many have stated that it was the personality of the Mayor that caused such strife and yet others believe it was because we have a Mayor-Council form of government with a strong-mayor system. And indeed, our charter is based upon this system, but does it mean the executive has the right to do as he alone deems fit for the city?

The city of Clarksville is setup as a Mayor-Council form of government, which is the oldest form of city government, and is similar to that of the state and federal system. As such: the branches of government being an elected Mayor as the Executive and an elected Council as the Legislative body with a supposedly separation between the two branches. The strong-mayor system provides the Mayor with the ability to veto measures that the council might pass, appoint high ranking members of the city’s bureaucracy (standing approval from the Council), prepares the budget (pending Council approval), and proposes legislation to the council and many of his actions may not require council approval. In short, he conducts the daily affairs of the city and enforces the laws passed by the Council. This, in and of itself, is not the problem, rather it is the Executive’s other powers, as provided by the charter, that is a matter of contention.

The Mayor is not only the Executive of the city government (Part 1, Art. IV, Sec. 2), but he is also the presiding official and member of the Legislative Branch, the City Council, with legislative (law making) powers (Part 1, Art. II, sec. 10, 11, 20; Art. I, Sec.2 (b)). It is at this point that the city charter, our “Constitution”, violates the constitutional principles of “Separation of Powers” by a system of “checks and balances”.

The French philosopher Montesquieu wrote in The Spirit of the Law’s that when all power is concentrated in any single government body (or person), tyranny is usually the result. Only when the government is divided into separate bodies can a people be assured that their government is responsible, limited and free. Our founding fathers understood this and incorporated it into our current form of national government. So why then is it, this concentration of power, permitted in our charter? Is not the Council the Legislative Branch (Art. II, Sec. 3, Sec.20) of city and thus should not the Executive should be separate from the Legislative?

James Madison wrote that “….the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands…may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny” (The Federalist no. 47) and that “….the great security against a gradual concentration of the control powers in the same department consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means…to resist encroachment on the others….” (The Federalist no. 51). Our charter has not provided for this “great security”, indeed it has provided for and enforced “a gradual concentration” of power.

The City Charter provides the Mayor, as the Executive Branch, the executive privilege of the veto and the privileges of Legislative by permitting him to vote on all matters presented to the council (Art II, Sec 10; Art IV, Sec. 2) even if a tie breaking vote is not mandated. In theory, and principle, he can veto any legislation passed and than vote on the Council to uphold his own veto or even that of his own proposed legislation. The checks and balances of a free and just government are thereby negated. There is no true separation of powers, but the feared “gradual concentration” of power into the hands of one body or person.

In conjunction with this combined powers of governmental branches, the Executive has the right to nominate department heads (which is his prerogative), but may also select who sits upon the different legislative committees (Art. IV, Sec. 2(1)) as he deems fit. These committees are responsible to the Council to investigate research, perform oversight responsibilities, and recommend courses of actions that should be taken by the Legislative, not by the Executive. They do not set policy/law, only the Council as a whole is permitted this action. The Legislative committees do not take away executive power from the Executive. These committees are an instrument for the Council body so that they may perform their duties in an informed responsible fashion and as so, the member and the chairpersons of these committees are to be selected from and by the Council, not by the Executive. In the past years we have seen the Executive intimidate these committees by not allowing them to conduct inquiries into the proper operations of the city, contrary to their responsibilities as stated in the charter (Art. II, Sec. 15).

And so it is that we have “the accumulation of all powers” into one branch of government. This is the weakness of our city “Constitution”, the social contact between the governed and the government. It does not matter who is the Executive, be he over-ambitious with delusions of grandeur or a person of high morals and values, they are both human with human weakness, for without the proper checks in place, the current city government will continue to be unlimited and irresponsible with poor leadership.

And what is the cure for this ailment that favors quasi-tyrannical powers? The debaters of the national constitution knew the answer to this query, “….that it is an established principle in America…that the legislative and executive powers ought to be kept forever separate and distinct from each other….” (Pennsylvania Herald (Phil.), Oct. 17, 1787). The charter must be revisited again, changed to reflect the basic principles of good government and executed so that there is a true separation of governmental powers supported by checks and balances.

If not, then we, The People, can only hope that we will elect wise and honorable leaders who will respect our national heritage of a just and free government and not that of Machiavellian politics or Orwellian newspeak (double talk). But even then, we may find a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Mike Sanford

This document ignores the concept of the separation of powers, accountability to the governed, and control by the governed. For all their conferencing, the end product is not worthy of the effort, nor the support of the people of this great community. As analysis has revealed, we were not well served and our desire and hopes for improved, enhanced people-powered governance still eludes us. It is no accident that we, the electorate, have not been allowed to record our vote of approval or rejection.