Dorchester Council refuses to consider charter changes

Attorney Chip MacLeod, special counsel hired for the charter review process, introduced three resolutions for the council’s consideration Tuesday night, Aug. 2, as ballot questions for the November general election.

The first resolution, setting term limits for council members, died for lack of a sponsor. The second resolution, to eliminate the residency requirement for the county manager, was introduced as a motion by Councilman Ricky Travers, Third District. The motion died for lack of a second. The third resolution, to eliminate the residency requirement for the county’s director of finance, suffered the same fate — introduced as a motion by Travers and died for lack of a second.

As the council went to the next item on its agenda, members of the Charter Review Commission seated in the audience called out wanting to know if there would be anytime for public comment.

“Shouldn’t we at least be able to give our view on what we’ve done? We did a lot of work as a committee, and you’re sitting there now and have not even considered anything that this committee did as a whole. And believe me, they put a lot of work and effort into it,” said Susan Dukes, Charter Review Commission member. “There should have been at least one thing in the suggestions that we gave you that you could have put through, tweaked or made consideration of. It’s really very disappointing and very upsetting at the manner in which this is being handled.”

Council President Jay Newcomb, First District, said there was nothing to discuss because there had been no seconds.

“Can I ask you who proposed the amendments?” asked Phil Reed, Charter Review Commission chairman.

“None of the ones brought out were from the committee, so you actually discussed absolutely nothing that we put in for suggestions for you to look at,” Dukes said.

Some recommendations proposed by the commission included providing a contract for the county manager, requiring a super majority vote to remove the county manager, non-interference by council members with employees who answer to the county manager, prohibiting the county manager from having been a council member for at least two years prior, applying the ethics code to council members, and promoting transparency in government by increasing public access through broadcast or internet, providing detailed agendas and posting minutes as soon as possible.

Dukes said the issues the commission addressed were issues that were brought up again and again by community, the employees and the department heads.

“I can’t believe of all the suggestions we gave you that you all couldn’t find one thing that you could have moved forward,” she said.

Travers mentioned Councilman Lenny Pfeffer had proposed some of the commission’s suggestions. Pfeffer, whose father was ill, was absent at the start of the meeting.

Reed wanted to know why the council couldn’t take Pfeffer’s suggestions as a second.

Pfeffer arrived at that point, apologizing for being late, having driven back from the hospital in Salisbury.

MacLeod spoke briefly on the process to get local questions on the ballot. Anything approved by the council would need to be turned around as a properly worded question to citizens by Friday, Aug. 5, to meet the 95-day deadline to be included on the ballot for the general election.

“I hope the public understands, for matters like these to move forward, the council has to discuss them,” MacLeod said, adding he thought there was a “good faith effort” to try to advance areas where there was consensus. That’s where the three resolutions he had written came from.

Pfeffer asked MacLeod why his proposals weren’t considered.

MacLeod said he had received some proposals that same day, but that before he could move forward with any of them he needed the council’s authorization.

Pfeffer said he emailed his proposals, which included four things the commission was looking for, to the council, the lawyers and Acting County Manager Donna Lane on Friday, and Lane had sent a poll out to the other council members for their consideration.

Lane said she received no replies to the poll.

“So, what’s the board think? You’ve seen my resolutions I submitted using the general template of Chip. I mean, is the board willing to put forward the things, these are the ones, the ideas from the commission?” Pfeffer asked.

Travers made a motion to move forward with Pfeffer’s proposals. Pfeffer seconded the motion. The motion died in a 2-3 vote with Newcomb and Council members William Nichols, Second District, and Libby Nagel, Fifth District, against.

When the motion failed, Pfeffer apologized to the commission members for their work, adding he had tried to get a special session scheduled the previous week to discuss the proposals with the commission, but that also had failed 2-3. “Thank you for what you did for this county.”

By statute, the council is required to appoint a charter review commission every 10 years. This one was delayed two years by the COVID-19 pandemic.

In addition to Dukes and Reed, members of the 2022 Charter Review Commission included Rev. George Ames, Dr. Teresa Stafford, Linda Henry and Bruce Coulson.