The Raytown Charter Commission’s 5th Meeting

The actual progress made in the 5th Charter Commission meeting was hard to determine.  Once the minutes have been published, I will review them along with the video and publish a more objective summary.  In the meantime, what follows is my editorial point of view …

Editorial content:

The 5th meeting wasted 2 hours of the 2.5-hour session talking about adding wording like “sovereign” and “right to bear arms” in the draft charter’s definition of the rights of the people. Many items that a subset of the commission wanted included are not bad ideas in principle, but have no place in a city charter.  I may like blue cheese, but it does not belong in my iced tea. These subjects are the appropriate domain of the Federal and State government; nothing the Charter Commission adds to the charter can supercede State or Federal law.   

The commission should be much further along, because so much time has been wasted on irrelevant and/or ineffective discussion. The first sections of the charter could have been copied from The Missouri Municipal League’s model charter with the only change being the insertion of the name Raytown in the appropriate spots. More significant sections are yet to be addressed that DO need careful attention, and that will need to be tailored specifically to Raytown.  Time wasted debating “rights” that are not in the domain of what a city government controls would be better spent addressing the “rights” we do NOT have and COULD have with a charter (petition, recall, and referendum). My concern is that the waters will get muddied with controversial issues that are dear to our Libertarian friends, but that would keep the charter from being passed by the majority of the voters.  

Other concerns…

1. A charter is not a constitution. There are similarities, and a charter is often described as a city’s constitution; however, a charter is not a constitution–just as a cat is not a tiger. They are similar, but not equal. 

2. Preceding a position or pronouncement by words like “technically,” or “legally” without factual citation in  support does not give more weight to a position in the mind of a listener with a discerning ear. 

3. Complaints about the delay in posting the Board of Aldermen meeting video on YouTube does not fall in the realm of the Charter Commission charge. 

4.  The delay in putting the previous Charter Commission video on the public channel was the fault of  RaytownOnline, not the fault of any city employee.   Other matters occupied my time and I did not get a DVD to the city as quickly as I have in the past.

End of Editorial Content