Reader urges ‘yes’ vote on county Charter Propositions 2 and 3


To the editor:

Residents will have an opportunity on Tuesday, Aug. 7, to support the County Council’s bipartisan effort to strengthen checks and balances in county government.

Proposition 2 allows the County Council, when it deems necessary, to hire its own attorney. Currently the only attorney available to the County Council for legal representation is the county counselor.

The county counselor is an office appointed by the county executive, and even though the appointment requires council approval, the person who holds that office has a primary allegiance to the county executive. As we have seen with the current county executive, the county counselor has made decisions that show a bias against the council.

County residents are better served by making sure our representatives
on the council receive legal representation that is objective and free of
political bias.

Proposition 3 better defines the word “employment” in the county Charter, which at present is unclear. A “yes” vote on Proposition 3 will align the definition of “employment” in the county Charter with the IRS definition of “employment.”

Currently, the word “employment,” as it applies to council members, is not specifically defined in Section 2.070 of the county Charter. The current vagueness of the definition of “employment” in the county Charter is allowing a loophole to be used against council members and forcing them in a court of law to defend their right to serve.

By voting “yes” on Proposition 3, the term “employment” will be redefined, saving the council members and the county from spending undue time and money in court.

Please join me in helping to improve our county Charter by voting “yes” on Propositions 2 and 3. County government functions best when checks and balances are in place, and when the document that serves as the county constitution clearly defines its terms.

Colleen T. George