Vote "No" on Question 2

Below is the section Derby voters will be asked to consider deleting from the City Charter.

Section 14.  Dual office holding, etc.

No officer of said city shall be at the same time a member of the Board of Aldermen. Neither the Mayor, Street Commissioner, Fire Commissioner nor any other officer of said city, either elected or appointed, including members of the Board of Aldermen, members of the Board of Apportionment and Taxation, members of the Finance Committee and members of the Board of Education, shall directly or indirectly furnish any materials to said city, or be directly or indirectly employed to do any work for said city except his/her official duty.  The provisions of this section may be waived by a unanimous vote of the Board of Aldermen.

Let's break down Section 14 into three simple sentences and speak plain English.

Sentence 1 (translation).

Any officer of Derby is not allowed to also be a member of the Board of Aldermen.

In other words, the Corporation Counsel, Tax Collector, Chief of Staff, Chief Administrative Officer, Police Commissioners, Building Official, and Town Clerk (and more) cannot also be members of the Board of Aldermen.

Subsequently, if we remove Section 14 from the Charter (and the person is a Derby resident) all those people would be permitted to also be members of the Board of Aldermen while collecting their city paychecks.

Does anybody have a problem with Sentence 1?

Sentence 2 (translation).

Nobody on this list is allowed to furnish goods or materials or do work for Derby whether they were elected or appointed.

If Section 14 is removed, any of these people could use their influence to divert city jobs to their private business or their friends or relatives business.

 Is it unreasonable to think this wouldn’t happen? The Valley Independent Sentinel listed examples of this occurring in the past, so it would be foolish to think it wouldn't present itself in the future.

Does anybody have a problem with Sentence 2?

Sentence 3 (translation).

Section 14 can be waived by a unanimous vote of the Board of Aldermen.

This is the sentence that causes concern for a small but vocal minority in the city.  The argument is that a single individual should not be able to overturn the vote of the people.

Despite the fact that no elected official has ever been denied a waiver, those in favor of removing Section 14, claim that one man or woman with a grudge could deny the vote of the people.

If someone did deny a waiver over a grudge it would be tantamount to political suicide. The person would likely never hold political office again and it's very likely the person would be ostracized within the community.

We live in a country that recognizes a representative form of government. Every day those who hold office make decisions that affect all of us. Some decisions are good, some are bad, but it’s the form of democracy this country has embraced.

Those in favor of removing Section 14, claim that when they go door knocking, the people know they work for the city based on the bios they hand out.  Not true.  Many citizens claim they don't read the bios or really only care about the top of the ticket.

Finally, if the proponents of removing Section 14 wanted a single sentence edited, then that is the question they should have placed on the ballot.  It would be irresponsible to delete an entire section that has served our city well.

On Election Day, vote "NO" on question 2.