"In recently promoting four Utica police officers who live outside the city, the Roefaro administration chose not to enforce the city charter’s residency requirement.So far, so good...
"Here’s a better idea: Don’t break the law — scrap it."
While I do not necessarily feel that the residency law should be scrapped (there are pros and cons on this), scrapping a law is always better than breaking it.
"This issue has been going on for decades, and Mayor David Roefaro must put an end to it once and for all. . . .How impatient of the OD! . . But the last time I checked, the Mayor does not have the authority to "scrap" any law . . . The Common Council does. . . .
"“The last administration left this in my lap, but I plan to put it to bed once and for all,” he said.
"Good. So do it already."
It's simple civics: the Legislative branch (Council) makes the laws and the Executive Branch (Mayor) carries them out.
The editorial is directed to the wrong person. Is this just ignorance . . . or is the OD looking for an excuse to dump on the Mayor?
3 comments:
http://romesentinel.com/news?newsid=20080618-141207
Why is it that everything with the name "Utica" gets turned into "Mohawk Valley" but Rome keeps their identity (i.e. Chamber of No-Commerce, MV Water Authority, etc.)?
Jr
I think Roefaro has to take some blame here too. You're correct in your explanation of the seperation of powers, but Roefaro did make the statement that "I plan to put it to bed once and for all." Maybe he should learn what his powers are too.
It may just be an honest mistake. I'm not trying to make an excuse for anyone, but it doesn't seem like anyone is asking Roefaro to take over the legislative branch of government. Roefaro as executive can certainly promote his ideas and wishes before the Common Council...
Then again, you are wise to be alert for such discrepancies, especially in this area and in this day and age.
Post a Comment