'Against' Syracuse Referendum 1
Text 
No Comments [ Add Comment ]G
rowing pains. That's a polite word for the vitriol that's been marking the battle over Syracuse's Referendum No. 1. The debate has degenerated into name-calling and personal attacks, when it ought to be about what form of government is right for this fast-growing northwestern Davis County community.
The Standard-Examiner urges voters to cast their ballots against "Citizens City Referendum No. 1," since we believe it runs contrary to the intent of the majority of voters who re-elected Mayor Fred Panucci to office in 2005.
More than a year ago, members of the Syracuse City Council, despite a popular outcry from city residents, voted to change the form of Syracuse's government. When Panucci was re-elected, those who voted for him understood that he functioned as the city's CEO -- though he was not a full-time mayor, he could nevertheless hire and fire and make administrative decisions. The council didn't like the way Panucci had managed work on the Jensen Nature Park, so they in effect reduced his role to that of a ceremonial leader and gave the power to hire and fire -- the CEO responsibilities -- to a city manager.
Lots of Syracuse residents had asked the council to put the change of government question to a vote of the people. The council ignored their plea and pushed ahead. Residents responded with a petition drive to reverse the council's decision; when they gained enough votes to put the question on this month's ballot, the 2nd District Court reversed the council's decision until the Nov. 6 election settles the question.
While the Standard-Examiner's editorial board feels Panucci should retain his CEO title in Syracuse -- that would be accomplished by voting "against" the referendum -- we are not at all opposed to the city manager form of government. But anyone who has observed the Syracuse debate -- that's a generous word for the sometimes coarse invective that's been used by some people on both sides -- ought to understand that this has been anything but a substantive discussion.
It's just as we described it in this space a year ago: "The unfortunate thing about these intra-governmental flare-ups is that by the time the clatter has subsided and the mayor's role has been reduced, hurt feelings are festering, and the vindictive back-and-forth politics -- if not by the principals involved, then their supporters -- tend to reverberate through the next several election cycles. Theoretically, grown-ups should be able to avoid such retribution, but they rarely do ... ."
Part of the problem in Syracuse is that state law is maddeningly vague in regard to forms of municipal government. It appears the Legislature might be poised to rectify that situation during the 2008 session, including requiring a vote of the people to alter the form of government. That's why we're urging Syracuse voters to leave Panucci's position as voters intended in 2005 -- by voting "against" Citizens City Referendum No. 1 -- see what the Legislature does regarding reform measures, then conduct a civil debate about what responsibilities ought to fall to the person who is elected mayor of Syracuse in 2009.
Add Your Comment
